This time in the largest Confederate city, New Orleans.

Frankly, cities and states removing Confederate imagery from flags and public prominence isn't news anymore, but I don't think we've had a thread on it. Given the Conservative surge in the 2016 election's, it'll be interesting to see where bills like this go.

Workers in New Orleans dismantled the city's Jefferson Davis monument early Thursday, removing the prominent statue of the Confederate leader that had stood for more than 100 years.

"This historic moment is an opportunity to join together as one city and redefine our future," Mayor Mitch Landrieu said as he announced that crews had begun removing the statue, the second of four planned removals of Confederacy-related monuments.

As workers slung a strap around the statue's waist and lifted it off its pedestal, "at least 100 people cheered from across the street, outnumbering the few dozen protesters, some waving Confederate flags," member station WWNO's Laine Kaplan-Levenson reported.

"We would have preferred it to be in the daytime," monument opponent Malcolm Suber told Kaplan-Levenson, "so everybody could see it in the light of day. But we'll take this."

Like an earlier removal, this one was performed in the dark because, Kaplan-Levenson said, of "death threats against city officials and contractors."

Before the monument could be removed, police had to clear the immediate area of demonstrators — both supporters of the monuments and those who want them taken away. Barricades were used to keep the sides separated, NOLA.com reported. The news outlet said chants by monument supporters included "Where's Mitch?" while opponents chanted, "Hey hey, ho ho, white supremacy has got to go."

Legal fights over the statues have slowed the removal of the monuments, but a federal appeals court said in March that the city could remove them. The New Orleans City Council endorsed the plan in December 2015, as member station WWNO has reported.

The first to go was the Battle of Liberty Place monument, which commemorated not a Civil War clash, but a white supremacist-led insurrection during Reconstruction.

The remaining two monuments honor Gens. Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard, and like the Davis statue, they're in prominent spots. The Davis monument stood at the intersection of the parkway that bears his name and Canal Street. Lee's is in Lee Circle, and Beauregard's is at the entrance to City Park.

The inscription on the Davis statue reads, "His name is enshrined in the hearts of the people for whom he suffered, and his deeds are forever wedded to immortality." But Landrieu and his allies say the monument and others like it are holding New Orleans back by celebrating the "cult of the Lost Cause," referring to the Confederacy's deadly and doomed fight against the Union.

From the mayor's statement released Thursday:

"These monuments have stood not as historic or educational markers of our legacy of slavery and segregation, but in celebration of it. I believe we must remember all of our history, but we need not revere it. To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in some of our most prominent public places is not only an inaccurate reflection of our past, it is an affront to our present, and a bad prescription for our future. We should not be afraid to confront and reconcile our past."

Those who want the monuments to remain include the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has urged its members and supporters to hold vigils at the statues to prevent their removal. Earlier this month, the group's chaplain urged members to write their state legislators in support of a bill that forbids removing Confederate monuments, saying a "war on Southern heritage is raging."

Other backers of keeping the monuments include two Louisiana historic preservation groups and the Monumental Task Committee, a nonprofit that says its volunteers have "taken care of ALL New Orleans monuments for over 25 years."

Landrieu aired his plan to remove the four Confederate monuments a week after the Charleston church massacre of 2015, when nine black worshippers were killed by a white gunman who had displayed a Confederate-era flag.

As WWNO reports, the mayor's plan calls for the monuments to be put in museums.

5944130
Far more than being pissed off about tearing down pro-southern statues, I'm mostly pissed in my historian side for tearing down a historical monument. These tossers only care about the parts of history they'd like, not history in general

5944130 And this is why I hate Liberals.

5944152

Per the article, the nominal plan is to relocate the monuments to museums. If true, that strikes me as a fine way to preserve historical value while removing them as objects of veneration.

5944279
The problem being in that they're not doing it because they want to but because they have to. I can tell that they'd prefer to just destroy them but they know that doing that would cause all sorts of trouble.

I'll stand by what I've said before, these are people who only care about their version of history. That's the trend that's been going on for a while.

5944314

Well said.

5944314

I agree with removing symbols from state flags, which earnestly shouldn't have the symbol of armed revolt against the government on them. As for the statues, I'm pretty indifferent - the more Social Justice Warriors and White Supremacists tear into each other, the less time they have to bother the rest of us.

I'll stand by what I've said before, these are people who only care about their version of history.

One should study the facts and formulate their views based on them.

5944453
There's a difference between studying the facts and trying to re-write them, and along with that beating down others for their view of the facts.

5944494

But nobody's being "beaten down" here. How does moving a statue to a museum violate rights, or re-write history?

5944130 I may be a Unionist regarding the Civil War and the present day, but I think this was not the proper course. I despise slavery and secession, but this is America, where people are allowed to have opposing views... or at least, by it's own laws it ought to be. And I think that getting rid of the statue at night was honestly a dishonest thing to do, and that they ought to come out with proof of "death threats" before pointing fingers at anyone.

5944597
Not literally beating down, just a synonym for talking down, against, or back against someone. Generally going after people for their views, when those views tend to be relatively mild. And like I said, they like to rewrite history when they get the chance; I know for sure they'd destroy it if it didn't cause such a fuss with the law and historians. It's a slow process.

5944130
5944152
5944157
5944269
5944652

Many of these Confederate monuments are honoring southern soldiers that were just fighting for their homes. I really don't think the average southerner was going off to war so some rich bastards can keep their slaves.

I think E.M Foster sums it up nicely. “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

5944836 you do know you don't have to reply to every comment, right?

5944760

What is your argument? At first it seemed to be based on defending objects of historical value, but once it was noted the statues would be preserved you began focusing on presuming the worst of those involved, and that is a weak angle.

5944842

Sorry can't help it. There were too many wonderful people on this thread.

5944851
Well you can see what Irish Cat said in terms of them being there and the historical value. I know these kinds of people and these are the people that could care less about historical accuracy if they feel like getting rid of something they don't like. It's the kind of people who don't know the main reason Lincoln fought the war or how the soldiers and men treated each other.

I know because I live in the same state and they're largely a bunch of wankers. Ones like Lee Circle have been there forever and they knew that destroying the monuments would raise all manner of Hell far more than what there is now (Democrats in the past few years have a bit of a bad rep for screwing up several things around here). This whole thing started because of a retarded misunderstanding.

In terms of the whole thing I'll listen to their claims of being historically caring about facts when they admit the Black Panthers are a violent gang and admit Malcolm X was a hair away from being a domestic Islamic terrorist.

Also I'll take that quote you posted and use it in the same way to all the people who think that those who want to keep the monument up are racists who want the south to secede.

5944652

I may be a Unionist regarding the Civil War and the present day, but I think this was not the proper course. I despise slavery and secession, but this is America, where people are allowed to have opposing views... or at least, by it's own laws it ought to be. And I think that getting rid of the statue at night was honestly a dishonest thing to do, and that they ought to come out with proof of "death threats" before pointing fingers at anyone.

I have some familiarity with the subject... when officials are instructed to do something highly-visible and controversial (i.e., arresting a popular figure, or removing a popular monument), it is not an uncommon tactic to do so at an unexpected time in order to limit the potential for disruption. If it had been public, daytime, and pre-announced, there would have been protesters, counter-protesters, police walls, a media circus, ugly standoffs... and that's if nothing goes wrong. Here, they skipped all those to get it done quickly and painlessly. "Dishonest," sure, whatever, but I do not think the local government was wrong to do the job as safely, quickly, and undisruptively as possible. The decision had already been made, and protest couldn't really have accomplished anything good.

As for the death threats, there may be a police investigation involved, in which case they may not be allowed to publish them. I find it more likely they did receive death threats, simply because public officials can't blow their nose without getting 50 of the damn things. They got threats for this along with everything else, and made them the excuse for doing it at night. It has much better PR than, "We don't want to host the next race riot."

I mean... it was a local case, made by the local elected government. I think it's best to leave 'em as a lesson of history, but if New Orleans doesn't like it they can vote somebody else in. That's democracy.

5944836

Well, this particular monument was of Jeff Davis, so this is definitely not one of those "honor our soldiers" bits, but rather a "rah, rah, Confederacy!" Because Jeff he uh, he uh... ooh. Not a CSA soldier's best friend.

I think the distinction is worth making. All respect to my great uncle for putting on the jackboots and fighting for Das Reich, but I sure as duck don't want a statue celebrating the government in question. And I won't be too keen if the SJW turns their eyes on battlefields or museums.

...Heh.

5944962

And I won't be too keen if the SJW turns their eyes on battlefields or museums.

Amen to that.

5944909

Well you can see what Irish Cat said in terms of them being there and the historical value.

Which may be preserved in a museum.

I know these kinds of people and these are the people that could care less about historical accuracy if they feel like getting rid of something they don't like. It's the kind of people who don't know the main reason Lincoln fought the war or how the soldiers and men treated each other.
I know because I live in the same state and they're largely a bunch of wankers. Ones like Lee Circle have been there forever and they knew that destroying the monuments would raise all manner of Hell far more than what there is now (Democrats in the past few years have a bit of a bad rep for screwing up several things around here). This whole thing started because of a retarded misunderstanding.
In terms of the whole thing I'll listen to their claims of being historically caring about facts when they admit the Black Panthers are a violent gang and admit Malcolm X was a hair away from being a domestic Islamic terrorist.
Also I'll take that quote you posted and use it in the same way to all the people who think that those who want to keep the monument up are racists who want the south to secede.

There's really no rebuttal to "I think this way because I don't like these people." And I find absolutely nothing wrong with a good grudge. Just keep in mind a lot of what you said flows both ways - many desperately minimize the CSA's cornerstone (slavery) in efforts to make the cause more sympathetic with a modern audience. Categorizing the opposition by its radical base is likewise a thing done by both sides, and painting them all with an easy "they." "They want to destroy the statues completely," "They oppose it because they are white supremacists," etc. These are strawmen arguments, and should be avoided.

Empathy and a degree of caution serve well in any situation. Particularly this one - for some of those against you, being "beaten down" was definitely literal in a time not long passed.

5945035

Just keep in mind a lot of what you said flows both ways

I very well know that; I just said that quote you gave me with could be turned around on the other side.

many desperately minimize the CSA's cornerstone (slavery) in efforts to make the cause more sympathetic with a modern audience.

Well, I'm not; I'm a unionist and American entirely. The problem comes in taking in what you said before this, in that they are trying to make it out to look like we're glorifying slavery. We're not, nor are we saying we should secede again. We're trying to have pride in the fight we gave in the war, something both Lincoln and Grant understood at the end of it. It's a matter of respect to your enemy and his accomplishments, and the point of putting up things like Lee Circle was to honor men like him, not to be put in a museum. It's like if the Belgians just tore down Langemark Cemetery because it's for the Germans.

So no, it does not belong in a museum; things like cannons and uniforms belong in a museum. This was made as an outward monument from the start, if it was made for a museum it would be in a museum. It is meant to be displayed in the city in monument it was made for, not displayed as an artifact out of the way of people who don't like it.

Categorizing the opposition by its radical base is likewise a thing done by both sides, and painting them all with an easy "they."

It is, it's something you're doing here. I don't think anyone here actually likes slavery or thinks that the South winning would have been a good thing. Again I call all these people tossers because the whole Confederate Flag argument from last year they took up spawned out of a retarded misunderstanding on their behalf.

5944130

Personally I didn't have a problem with them tearing down the Liberty Place monument. Thing was an eyesore that was better viewed in a museum than on the streets of New Orleans glorifying the attempted uprising by white supremacists in the wake of the Civil War. As for the removal of the Jefferson Davis monument and the other Confederate monuments soon to follow what has to be remembered is that this decision was voted for by the people of New Orleans. They wanted it now they got it.

5945100

Well, I'm not; I'm a unionist and American entirely. The problem comes in taking in what you said before this, in that they are trying to make it out to look like we're glorifying slavery. We're not, nor are we saying we should secede again. We're trying to have pride in the fight we gave in the war, something both Lincoln and Grant understood at the end of it. It's a matter of respect to your enemy and his accomplishments, and the point of putting up things like Lee Circle was to honor men like him, not to be put in a museum. It's like if the Belgians just tore down Langemark Cemetery because it's for the Germans.
So no, it does not belong in a museum; things like cannons and uniforms belong in a museum. This was made as an outward monument from the start, if it was made for a museum it would be in a museum. It is meant to be displayed in the city in monument it was made for, not displayed as an artifact out of the way of people who don't like it.

Good! You're making an argument.

Now allow me to present the following: it is not unreasonable for a historically-educated black man to see those statues on the street - not commemorating common soldiers, but generals, politicians, and revolts (Liberty Place) - and say, "Statues are built to honor and glorify things. In maintaining these statues, my city is honoring and glorifying a revolt expressly devoted to the enslavement of my ancestors which caused the destruction of one million Americans and the bloodiest chapter in our nation's history. Therefore, remove it." Why does your interpretation of what the statues "are about" supersede his?

It is, it's something you're doing here. I don't think anyone here actually likes slavery or thinks that the South winning would have been a good thing.

Incorrect - I have not accused anyone here of endorsing slavery. The historical Confederacy did - with extent and emphasis to the point where they cheerfully and repetitively identified it as their principle cause and casus belli (cause for war). No other issue enjoyed that state of reverence; therefore, it is not unreasonable to say the revolt was primarily over slavery because the Confederate state and national governments said it was primarily over slavery, and they're the ones who got to choose. This is not a bland accusation of radicalism, but an assertion based in facts from the era. Sources available on request.

That modern Confederates do not identify as slavers goes without saying. That some assert the same of the historical Confederacy is the product of either bias, lack of knowledge, or presence of some mystic knowledge I have not been made aware of.

While reason and empathy must be chief, it is not unreasonable to call the denial of facts exactly what it is.

5945247

I dunno, I can see it as a history lesson all in one place. The plaques read as-followed:

1932:

[Democrats] McEnery and Penn having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).

United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.

But then, in 1974:

Although the "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans.

And in 1993:

In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future.

To me, they tell a full story of history condensed in one place. The Neo-Con may see the first plaque and realize yes, his ancestors really were super-down with white supremacy. It's not just liberal propaganda or whatever else he hears at the bar. And a black man may see the second and realize that past is not today.

That third plaque is just recycled sappy bullschmit, but it and the second would certainly rub the first's authors the wrong way. With the right investment - and investment had been made - the meaning of worked metal and stone can be changed.

5945432

Sounds like they tried to contextualize the monument but regardless of that the people of New Orleans voted to take it down. Therefore it had to go.