What are your thoughts on the Confederate memorials being taken down in NOLA?

This thread has been very educational. Thanks to Tidewater and everyone else who contributed to that.

LA4Bama said:

This thread has been very educational. Thanks to Tidewater and everyone else who contributed to that.

Click to expand...

Except for the alternative facts.:biggrin:

Bamaro said:

Once again if there had been no slavery there would have been no Civil War. Maybe later but I seriously doubt it.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but slavery did exist, before there were any States in the Union or even a Union, chattel slavery existed in North America. And significant northerners decided that they simply could not live with countrymen who tolerated slavery without trying to murder them. That tends to upset the prospective murder victims a bit.

Move the statues to an appropriate battlefield if you want

Click to expand...

An interesting idea.

but they dont belong where they are now.

Click to expand...

Mayor Landrieu agrees with you. But the only reason they don’t belong there is because the constituted authorities of New Orleans have decided so, but they have decided so for irrational, counterfactual reasons.

And its not all about slavery although thats a large part.

Click to expand...

I would agree but you are still being quite lazy in defining that term. Since both Lincoln and the Republicans platform professed to have neither the power nor the intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it existed (and Lincoln in his inaugural even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would forbid any future amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery), what aspect of slavery caused this war? Abolishing slavery was not even on the table when the Deep South seceded, although radical northerners indiscriminately murdering southerners, white and black whether they owned slaves or not was on the table. (The first murder victim of John Brown's "army" at Harper's Ferry was Heyward Shepherd, a free black man. How discriminate would the next John Brown army be? And would a Republican President lend the aid of the Federal government to arrest it or sit by and let it engulf the South in a racial holocaust?).

Its also about those who took up arms against the US.

Click to expand...

Because the Federal government was violently rebelling against the limitations the Constitution placed on Federal powers. No violation of the Constitution, no secession, at least not in Virginia. When Lincoln called for troops to invade the seceded states, the voters of Virginia wanted nothing to do with that.

Tidewater said:

You keep saying this, but slavery did exist, before there were any States in the Union or even a Union, chattel slavery existed in North America. And significant northerners decided that they simply could not live with countrymen who tolerated slavery without trying to murder them. That tends to upset the prospective murder victims a bit.

Click to expand...

Right, and folks on the pro-slavery side sometimes murdered and attacked their anti-slavery contemporaries. William Llloyd Garrison was nearly lynched after giving an anti-slavery speech two decades before Brown became prominent. Minister Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in Illinois around that time. Effigies representing abolitionist leaders were burned and anti-slavery pamphlets were thrown into bonfires. Richard Henry Dana was assaulted by a group of pro-slavery rioters for defending a black man in 1854. Abolitionists often risked their very lives talking about it openly, especially in the slave states.

This wasn't at all unusual. Anti-slavery sentiments were often faced with violence well before the war.

If you're going to point out the extrajudicial violence of the abolitionists, it only seems fair to point our that the pro-slavery side's hands were painted red too.

Tidewater said:

I would agree but you are still being quite lazy in defining that term. Since both Lincoln and the Republicans platform professed to have neither the power nor the intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it existed (and Lincoln in his inaugural even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would forbid any future amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery), what aspect of slavery caused this war? Abolishing slavery was not even on the table when the Deep South seceded, although radical northerners indiscriminately murdering southerners, white and black whether they owned slaves or not was on the table. (The first murder victim of John Brown's "army" at Harper's Ferry was Heyward Shepherd, a free black man. How discriminate would the next John Brown army be? And would a Republican President lend the aid of the Federal government to arrest it or sit by and let it engulf the South in a racial holocaust?).

Click to expand...

The casus belli of the South could not be more obvious. Nevermind that Lincoln had no such power to outright end slavery, and even if he did, no desire to exercise it. The Lincoln-Douglas debates both threw the election to Lincoln and made him the anti-slavery boogeyman to the South.

James Chestnut led his delegation out of Congress immediately after Lincoln's election, and began organizing the siege of federal installations in the harbor (Chestnut's wife's diary is an excellent read, and he was later a military aide for President Davis). This was before they had even passed a secession ordinance. They weren't even the least bit subtle about it, and slavery was mentioned overwhelmingly in the seceding states' declarations of secession and many other primary sources from the time.

Tidewater said:

Because the Federal government was violently rebelling against the limitations the Constitution placed on Federal powers. No violation of the Constitution, no secession, at least not in Virginia. When Lincoln called for troops to invade the seceded states, the voters of Virginia wanted nothing to do with that.

Click to expand...

In December 1860, a little after Lincoln was elected and more than three months before he was sworn in, South Carolina militia occupied water batteries in the harbor at Charleston and set up other batteries in the attempt to command Fort Sumter. They were outraged that Maj. Anderson had removed Federal property from the arsenal in the city to his position at Fort Moultrie, and when Anderson moved his garrison to Fort Sumter, state authorities complained and began a siege of the fortress. Buchanan refused an indirect summons, just as Anderson refused a direct summons, both in January 1861, two months before Lincoln was sworn in. This was a clear violation of the constitution, as was South Carolina's adherence to a confederacy and as was the act of firing on The Star of the West when they attempted to resupply the fort.

In January, 1861, two months after Lincoln was elected, but two months before he was sworn into office, an armed mob from Pensacola attempted to seize the Federal property at Fort McCrae and Fort Barrancas. Lt. Slemmer drove off the mob and his detachment, which had already removed most of the powder to Fort Pickens, spiked the guns they could not remove and set fire to the rest of the arsenal. The State of Florida sent in militia to seize and hold those forts. The actions of the State of Florida and the State of Alabama in sending troops to Pensacola were clearly a violation of the Constitution.

In February, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, seven states formed the Confederate States of America, again violating the Constitution. Article one, Section ten.

All of this occurred before Lincoln was sworn in. The South was making war with the US before Lincoln even had any authority to do anything about it, attempting to seize federal property and firing on federal forces. It was not their property before 1860, and it didn't become their property because their state suddenly claimed it. Was any effort made to reimburse the federal government, and the rest of the states who had paid for those federal installations before their seizure? Did the state congressional delegations make any effort to adjust any such claims before walking out and going home? No. They didn't. These hotheads were just itching for a war.

And really, what was Lincoln to have done? No American president could knuckle under to a pack of terrorists like that. It would be political suicide. You can easily imagine how a modern President would be treated if he caved to this kind of threat. I mean, apply this to modern times. Wyoming has a nuclear missile site. Should they secede, should they be allowed to take those bombs by force and become one of the world's foremost nuclear powers overnight?

AUDub said:

Right, and folks on the pro-slavery side sometimes murdered and attacked their anti-slavery contemporaries. William Llloyd Garrison was nearly lynched after giving an anti-slavery speech two decades before Brown became prominent. Minister Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in Illinois around that time. Effigies representing abolitionist leaders were burned and anti-slavery pamphlets were thrown into bonfires. Richard Henry Dana was assaulted by a group of pro-slavery rioters for defending a black man in 1854. Abolitionists often risked their very lives talking about it openly, especially in the slave states.

This wasn't at all unusual. Anti-slavery sentiments were often faced with violence well before the war.

If you're going to point out the extrajudicial violence of the abolitionists, it only seems fair to point our that the pro-slavery side's hands were painted red too.



In December 1860, a little after Lincoln was elected and more than three months before he was sworn in, South Carolina militia occupied water batteries in the harbor at Charleston and set up other batteries in the attempt to command Fort Sumter. They were outraged that Maj. Anderson had removed Federal property from the arsenal in the city to his position at Fort Moultrie, and when Anderson moved his garrison to Fort Sumter, state authorities complained and began a siege of the fortress. Buchanan refused an indirect summons, just as Anderson refused a direct summons, both in January 1861, two months before Lincoln was sworn in. This was a clear violation of the constitution, as was South Carolina's adherence to a confederacy and as was the act of firing on The Star of the West when they attempted to resupply the fort.

In January, 1861, two months after Lincoln was elected, but two months before he was sworn into office, an armed mob from Pensacola attempted to seize the Federal property at Fort McCrae and Fort Barrancas. Lt. Slemmer drove off the mob and his detachment, which had already removed most of the powder to Fort Pickens, spiked the guns they could not remove and set fire to the rest of the arsenal. The State of Florida sent in militia to seize and hold those forts. The actions of the State of Florida and the State of Alabama in sending troops to Pensacola were clearly a violation of the Constitution.

In February, 1861, at Montgomery, Alabama, seven states formed the Confederate States of America, again violating the Constitution. Article one, Section ten.

All of this occurred before Lincoln was sworn in. The South was making war with the US before Lincoln even had any authority to do anything about it, attempting to seize federal property and firing on federal forces. It was not their property before 1860, and it didn't become their property because their state suddenly claimed it. Was any effort made to reimburse the federal government, and the rest of the states who had paid for those federal installations before their seizure? Did the state congressional delegations make any effort to adjust any such claims before walking out and going home? No. They didn't. These hotheads were just itching for a war.

And really, what was Lincoln to have done? No American president could knuckle under to a pack of terrorists like that. It would be political suicide. You can easily imagine how a modern President would be treated if he caved to this kind of threat. I mean, apply this to modern times. Wyoming has a nuclear missile site. Should they secede, should they be allowed to take those bombs by force and become one of the world's foremost nuclear powers overnight?

Click to expand...

ive always believed that Buchanan didn't want to deal with the a clear and present danger of growing calls for secession, but I think Lincoln might of acted a little to fast. I feel that there was enough of "Jackson's men" in the south to possibly turn things around. Doubtful, but we will never know.

81usaf92 said:

ive always believed that Buchanan didn't want to deal with the a clear and present danger of growing calls for secession, but I think Lincoln might of acted a little to fast. I feel that there was enough of "Jackson's men" in the south to possibly turn things around. Doubtful, but we will never know.

Click to expand...

Yep. Counterfactuals are hard.

I believe the ball was rolling downhill and picking up speed well before Lincoln took office. The seceding states were well past the point of negotiations to save the Union. They were already levying unlawful war. I think he did his best with the bad situation he inherited.

Lincoln catches a lot of underserved hell from some, a lot of underserved hagiography from others. He was both greater than his detractors think and worse than those that sanctify him believe. A man, whom I ultimately believe to be a decent man, with a goal of seeing to it whether our nation could survive this particular test and survive as such. Screwed up badly in many cases and did some wise things in others. Probably did better than I ever could, anyway.

It's our heritage and a part of who we are and where we live.
If you remove these then you need to remove all memorials, including MLK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alabama legislature passed this law in the most recent session.

[FONT=&quot]CONFEDERATE MONUMENT PROTECTIONS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The bill prohibits the removal, alteration and relocation of any monument that has stood on public property for more than 40 years. A new state commission would have to approve changes for those that have stood for more than 20 years. The measure comes as some Southern cities rethink the appropriateness of Confederate emblems. Black lawmakers opposed the bill.[/FONT]

AUDub said:

Right, and folks on the pro-slavery side sometimes murdered and attacked their anti-slavery contemporaries. William Llloyd Garrison was nearly lynched after giving an anti-slavery speech two decades before Brown became prominent.

Click to expand...

Garrison was almost lynch for burning a copy of the Constitution of the United States, which he called "a covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell." Folks thought that was kind of an jerk thing to do. But it wasn’t southerners who attacked him. It was his fellow New Englanders, back when doing something like burning the Constitution would arouse the ire of a significant number of them. Today, that would probably elicit cheers from most New England crowds.

Minister Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in Illinois around that time.

Click to expand...

Editor Lovejoy murdered a man trying to destroy his printing press and was shot in return by an Illinois mob in 1837.

Effigies representing abolitionist leaders were burned and anti-slavery pamphlets were thrown into bonfires. Richard Henry Dana was assaulted by a group of pro-slavery rioters for defending a black man in 1854.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. The rioters in the Anthony Burns (a fugitive slave) case were the antislavery fanatics trying to prevent the law from being carried out. (A crappy law, but a law, and Burns was a fugitive slave.) The fighting broke out between antislavery mob and the law enforcement officials. A US Marshall named James Batchelder was murdered in this case and New England Republicans celebrated the murder and elected men who endorsed and celebrated the murder.
In May 1854, during the Anthony Burns case in which Deputy United States Marshal James Batchelder had been killed, Mason W. Tappan, a New Hampshire Republican, had told a crowd that “he was glad Batchelder was shot; that he hoped the mob would knock down every stone in the courthouse if the fugitive was not released; that he hoped to God they would shoot every government officer who interfered with them, and that he (Tappan) was ready to assist them in doing so.” (“Sentiment of a Black Republican Member and Signer of the Helper Manifesto,” Raleigh Weekly Standard, January 4, 1860, p. 3, col. 4.) Tappan was elected a Republican member of the House of Representatives after having made this statement and was in office when Harper’s Ferry happened.

Abolitionists often risked their very lives talking about it openly, especially in the slave states. This wasn't at all unusual. Anti-slavery sentiments were often faced with violence well before the war. If you're going to point out the extrajudicial violence of the abolitionists, it only seems fair to point our that the pro-slavery side's hands were painted red too.

Click to expand...

Except that the cases you’ve cited were in the north and committed by northerners. The ones I mentioned were northerners coming into the south and murdering southerners. Three of the five men murdered in Harper’s Ferry were not slaveholders. Heck, the first man killed was Hayward Sheppard, a free black man. Maybe you think he had it coming. I don't.
The fault lines were not pro-slavery men versus anti-slavery men. It was residents of states that permitted slavery and those that did not. Indiscriminately murdering black people and non-slaveholding whites reinforced southern solidarity in the face of this indiscriminate abolitionist onslaught.
If the people of a federal republic are so angry at each other that significant numbers are killing each other, why not separate? The people of South Carolina, Ga., Ala., Miss., La. and Texas expressed their opinion that separation was better that staying in a Union in which northern compatriots who had expressed a desire to kill them and were apparently setting about doing it.

"They were heroes who did their duty as they saw it and are worthy of this tribute from the descendants of the equally brave men whom they fought. Peace to their ashes." Moore's Creek Loyalist Monument. 1909.

This Revolutionary War monument in North Carolina erected in the same period as the Confederate monuments seems to indicate that their was at least some sentiment​ to honor soldiers.

Nice read on the Lee statue's removal in NOLA by Rod Dreher:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/new-orleans-robert-e-lee-old-dixie-down/

Lee is the one figure we should remember - in light of the fact that he told his men to go home and he ended the war in an amicable fashion.

Play Ball! said:

It's our heritage and a part of who we are and where we live.
If you remove these then you need to remove all memorials, including MLK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

MLK was a loyal American. Lee was not.

Bamaro said:

MLK was a loyal American. Lee was not.

Click to expand...

He was not particularly loyal to Coretta.

cbi1972 said:

He was not particularly loyal to Coretta.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but she wasn't a 3rd cousin.:wink:

Bamaro said:

MLK was a loyal American. Lee was not.

Click to expand...

This is some A+ chronological snobbery.

The idea of patriotism as we conceive it today just did not exist in the same manner in 1860. Most Americans thought of themselves as belonging to their state first, the Union second. Lee was hardly alone in thinking this way. Shelby Foote was right in noting that none of the original colonies would have joined the Union if they thought they couldn't get out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A spouse who feels mistreated and wants a divorce to start a new life should be condemned as disloyal, I guess.

Bamaro said:

MLK was a loyal American. Lee was not.

Click to expand...

To piggyback on Tidewater's fine summation, I don't think there's any way to understate the way moderate Southerners viewed the North's response to John Brown's execution - church bells, the comparisons to Jesus Christ, etc. It's part of what pushed a lot of people over the brink. Politics really is downstream from culture and the cultures were so far gone at that point - and not simply over slavery.

As an aside, I think the parallel between German romanticism leading to Wagner leading to Wiemar leading to Hitler is interesting when comparing the transcendentalists influence on a nut job like John Brown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk