New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[Tiberius]

 

Really. If the locals voted to remove a memorial in a private church you have it removed? Is nothing sacred to you?

 

And why is it a strange case?

A Confederate that broke the law like that to teach slaves. Strange because he was pro-slavery but wanted to save their souls or something. Why not just help them escape?

 

Oh, and if the church decided to move it then. Or if they decided to keep it.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Oh, and if the church decided to move it then. Or if they decided to keep it.

 

Sorry son that's not what you said.

[starrymessenger]

A Confederate that broke the law like that to teach slaves. Strange because he was pro-slavery but wanted to save their souls or something. Why not just help them escape?

 

Oh, and if the church decided to move it then. Or if they decided to keep it.

 

As I understand it he was probably not pro slavery as such, though of course he was not an abolitionist either. What we know for sure is that he was a brilliant blue-eyed killer who hated Yankees.

Maybe for him the conflict was more about state rights than slavery with slavery itself a secondary or incidental issue. If so, he may have been mistaken in that belief.

I don't think his involvement in the John Brown affair is evidence of anything in that regard. JMO but when Frederick Douglass later told people to "agitate" I don't think he had what John Brown did in mind. More like what Dr. King did a couple of generations later.

Good thing for the Union he went down at Chancellorsville. Unlike General Ewing, himself a capable commander, there is little doubt General Jackson would have taken that hill on day 1 at Gettysburg.

Edited January 20, 2016 by starrymessenger

[B-Man]

As I understand it he was probably not pro slavery as such, though of course he was not an abolisionist either. What we know for sure is that he was a brilliant blue-eyed killer who hated Yankees.

Maybe for him the conflict was more about state rights than slavery with slavery itself a secondary or incidental issue. If so, he may have been mistaken in that belief.

I don't think his involvement in the John Brown affair is evidence of anything in that regard. JMO but when Frederick Douglass later told people to "agitate" I don't think he had what John Brown did in mind. More like what Dr. King did a couple of generations later.

Good thing for the Union he went down at Chancellorsville. Unlike General Ewing, himself a capable commander, there is little doubt General Jackson would have taken that hill on day 1 at Gettysburg.

 

 

Mild correction:

 

It was Dick Ewell.

 

To General Richard S. Ewell, commander of the II Corps:

 

‘The enemy [is] retreating over those hills … in great confusion. You only need press those people to secure possession of the heights … .Do this, if possible.’

 

Legend tells us that, at that crucial moment, ‘Old Bald Head’ lost his nerve.

 

Instead of pursuing the fleeing Union soldiers, who were so panicked they could not defend themselves, Ewell held back, allowing the Federals to entrench atop Cemetery Hill. The advantage of holding the heights led to the Union victory at Gettysburg. Ewell’s indecision supposedly cost the South the battle.

[starrymessenger]

Mild correction:

 

It was Dick Ewell.

 

To General Richard S. Ewell, commander of the II Corps:

 

‘The enemy [is] retreating over those hills … in great confusion. You only need press those people to secure possession of the heights … .Do this, if possible.’

 

Legend tells us that, at that crucial moment, ‘Old Bald Head’ lost his nerve.

 

 

 

Instead of pursuing the fleeing Union soldiers, who were so panicked they could not defend themselves, Ewell held back, allowing the Federals to entrench atop Cemetery Hill. The advantage of holding the heights led to the Union victory at Gettysburg. Ewell’s indecision supposedly cost the South the battle.

Thank you. I know about Ewell, just misspelled.

Yeah, couldn't read between the lines when Generall Lee said "if practicable".

[DC Tom]

As I understand it he was probably not pro slavery as such, though of course he was not an abolitionist either. What we know for sure is that he was a brilliant blue-eyed killer who hated Yankees.

Maybe for him the conflict was more about state rights than slavery with slavery itself a secondary or incidental issue. If so, he may have been mistaken in that belief.

I don't think his involvement in the John Brown affair is evidence of anything in that regard. JMO but when Frederick Douglass later told people to "agitate" I don't think he had what John Brown did in mind. More like what Dr. King did a couple of generations later.

Good thing for the Union he went down at Chancellorsville. Unlike General Ewing, himself a capable commander, there is little doubt General Jackson would have taken that hill on day 1 at Gettysburg.

 

For a lot of Virginians the conflict was more about states' rights. Lee and Jackson didn't resign their commissions until Lincoln called up the state militias to subdue the "insurrection," and resigned specifically because their state loyalties were stronger than national loyalties (which was normal at that point in history, particularly south of the Mason-Dixon), and because they believed maintaining the Union by force was unconstitutional.

 

They also weren't supporters of slavery. The weren't supporters of abolition, either - they believe slavery was a dying, unsustainable institution, but needed to be wound down rationally (as in Delaware) and not precipitously and thoughtlessly. They were representative of the moderates that made up a majority of the country, that were drowned out and marginalized by the extremists on both sides.

 

And Gettysburg was just a !@#$ed-up battle by Lee. He lost control of all of his corps commanders and had Stuart uncharacteristically rattle-assing around in Maryland and not doing his reconnaissance . I doubt even Jackson could have recovered that battle.

Edited January 20, 2016 by DC Tom

[Chef Jim]

 

And Gettysburg was just a !@#$ed-up battle by Lee. He lost control of all of his corps commanders and had Stuart uncharacteristically rattle-assing around in Maryland and not doing his reconnaissance . I doubt even Jackson could have recovered that battle.

 

Ever since I visited Gettysburg (the only real Civil War battlefield I ever visited) I've been fascinated with what happened those three days. Even though I feel they've gaudied (is that a word) up the battlefields it was still incredible to see how large an area it covered. The Killer Angels is a great book in my mind (but what do I know) of what happened there. The telling of Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top was some of the best reading I've ever done on a battle. Even though I knew exactly what happened there I couldn't put it down.

[birdog1960]

so, i'm at my civic club this a.m. and the speaker is a local small college professor (i can already hear the hisses from the snake choir here) that wrote a book about racism in mississippi around the time of james meredith and univ of mississippi episode. ya know, it being the week of mlk holiday and all. and then a member that grew up in mississippi at that time relays a story about a jewish friend bombed out of their house just because her family were civil rights supporters. and i think wow, and were still arguing about honoring the most obvious and well known examples of racists in our nations history. sad. really sad.

[starrymessenger]

For a lot of Virginians the conflict was more about states' rights. Lee and Jackson didn't resign their commissions until Lincoln called up the state militias to subdue the "insurrection," and resigned specifically because their state loyalties were stronger than national loyalties (which was normal at that point in history, particularly south of the Mason-Dixon), and because they believed maintaining the Union by force was unconstitutional.

 

They also weren't supporters of slavery. The weren't supporters of abolition, either - they believe slavery was a dying, unsustainable institution, but needed to be wound down rationally (as in Delaware) and not precipitously and thoughtlessly. They were representative of the moderates that made up a majority of the country, that were drowned out and marginalized by the extremists on both sides.

 

And Gettysburg was just a !@#$ed-up battle by Lee. He lost control of all of his corps commanders and had Stuart uncharacteristically rattle-assing around in Maryland and not doing his reconnaissance . I doubt even Jackson could have recovered that battle.

That's interesting. Happy to hear that many Southerners regarded slavery as a dying institution, it is after all an abomination. The Brits abolished it in 1833, though that did not stop them from buying the cotton they needed. I've often wondered whether and how long it would have taken before people came to their senses and slavery died out naturally in the South, thus avoiding the most painful and traumatic event in US history. So many brave and noble men dying under both flags.

Virginia didn't grow cotton, unless I'm mistaken, and wasn't the election (or perhaps nomination) of Lincoln the catalyst for succession because that precluded the westward expansion of slavery? Cotton was big, big business given the needs of the industrial revolution and very profitable considering the insignificanf, ahem, production costs.

I also wonder as a legal matter how the validity of succession is regarded given the second amendment. Did the South have an argument that holds water?

[DC Tom]

 

Ever since I visited Gettysburg (the only real Civil War battlefield I ever visited) I've been fascinated with what happened those three days. Even though I feel they've gaudied (is that a word) up the battlefields it was still incredible to see how large an area it covered. The Killer Angels is a great book in my mind (but what do I know) of what happened there. The telling of Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top was some of the best reading I've ever done on a battle. Even though I knew exactly what happened there I couldn't put it down.

 

Gettysburg's so overdone, thanks to Dan Sickles (who royally !@#$ed up the second day, as badly as any general has ever !@#$ed up, and lost a leg, then lobbied for the creation of the park to justify lobbying for his entirely undeserved Medal of Honor.) The battlefield proper is smaller than the actual park - they have obelisks well away from the battlefield, commemorating the regiments of VI Corps sitting in reserve doing exactly nothing. I actually find the Gettysburg battlefield kind-of funny, with all the "Here this regiment sat with its collective thumb up its ass, waiting for something to do" memorials. I've said it before, Antietam is my preferred battlefield - little ornamentation, and it's unchanged enough that it can be a bit chilling to do things like stand in the sunken road or on Burnside's bridge.

[starrymessenger]

Ever since I visited Gettysburg (the only real Civil War battlefield I ever visited) I've been fascinated with what happened those three days. Even though I feel they've gaudied (is that a word) up the battlefields it was still incredible to see how large an area it covered. The Killer Angels is a great book in my mind (but what do I know) of what happened there. The telling of Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top was some of the best reading I've ever done on a battle. Even though I knew exactly what happened there I couldn't put it down.

 

The Man from Maine is certainly one of your most admirable persons. There were a number of staff officers on both sides of incredible valour and quality.

[DC Tom]

That's interesting. Happy to hear that many Southerners regarded slavery as a dying institution, it is after all an abomination. The Brits abolished it in 1833, though that did not stop them from buying the cotton they needed. I've often wondered whether and how long it would have taken before people came to their senses and slavery died out naturally in the South, thus avoiding the most painful and traumatic event in US history. So many brave and noble men dying under both flags.

Virginia didn't grow cotton, unless I'm mistaken, and wasn't the election (or perhaps nomination) of Lincoln the catalyst for succession because that precluded the westward expansion of slavery? Cotton was big, big business given the needs of the industrial revolution and very profitable considering the insignificanf, ahem, production costs.

I also wonder as a legal matter how the validity of succession is regarded given the second amendment. Did the South have an argument that holds water?

 

Not in the deep south. But in the border states, yes - it was recognized that slavery was unsustainable (already illegal in New Jersey, almost gone in Delaware, losing support in Maryland, Virginia. Interestingly, in two of the slave states that didn't secede - Kentucky and Missouri - the number of slaves increased up to the start of the war. And Kentucky was a slave state until well after the Civil War). The institution of slavery as we know it was a feature of the plantation farming and landed aristocracy of the deep South, which was slowly being replaced by New England mercantilism and industrialization. It just wasn't going fast enough for the New England abolitionists.

 

But really, when you get down to it...no one gave a **** about the blacks. Hell, the Union Army almost mutinied over the Emancipation Proclamation - most of the soldiers were though they were fighting for the Union under nine-month or two-year state militia contracts (that were up soon), and were extremely angry to suddenly find out that they were fighting for blacks. The racial narrative of the Civil war is largely (but not completely) bull **** - it was a conflict of economic systems.

[B-Man]

so, i'm at my civic club this a.m. and the speaker is a local small college professor (i can already hear the hisses from the snake choir here) that wrote a book about racism in mississippi around the time of james meredith and univ of mississippi episode. ya know, it being the week of mlk holiday and all. and then a member that grew up in mississippi at that time relays a story about a jewish friend bombed out of their house just because her family were civil rights supporters. and i think wow, and were still arguing about honoring the most obvious and well known examples of racists in our nations history. sad. really sad.

 

 

You know what is sad is,

 

discriminating minds can easily see the difference between, cowardly, ignorant, attacks by scummy racists, such as the one you described

 

and the honoring of Americans who fought for their states in the Confederacy, such as Robert E Lee.

 

 

But let's not put any thought into the discussion, let's tar everyone with the same brush.

 

 

 

(or is that phrase racist)

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

 

 

You know what is sad is,

 

discriminating minds can easily see the difference between, cowardly, ignorant, attacks by scummy racists, such as the one you described

 

and the honoring of Americans who fought for their states in the Confederacy, such as Robert E Lee.

 

 

But let's not put any thought into the discussion, let's tar everyone with the same brush.

 

 

 

(or is that phrase racist)

 

 

.

 

No, what's sad is that he could actually learn something if he pulled his head out of his ass and read some of this thread.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's interesting. Happy to hear that many Southerners regarded slavery as a dying institution, it is after all an abomination. The Brits abolished it in 1833, though that did not stop them from buying the cotton they needed. I've often wondered whether and how long it would have taken before people came to their senses and slavery died out naturally in the South, thus avoiding the most painful and traumatic event in US history. So many brave and noble men dying under both flags.

 

Had there been no civil war, slavery more than likely would have died out though there's no telling how long it would have taken. Had slavery been allowed to expand into the new territories, a crucial divisive issue leading up to the war, it might very well have lasted well into the 20th century.

 

One thing is for certain though, the civil war forced the issue. Despite the slave trade being "abolished" in 1807, it was still thriving well into the 1860s. It took war to end the slave trade and close the slaver ports in the Caribbean and South America. Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, or had they won the war, the trans Atlantic slave trade would have continued unabated and chattel slavery would have spread west under the protection of the Confederacy.

[DC Tom]

 

Had there been no civil war, slavery more than likely would have died out though there's no telling how long it would have taken. Had slavery been allowed to expand into the new territories, a crucial divisive issue leading up to the war, it might very well have lasted well into the 20th century.

 

The interesting corollary to that is to consider how things might have turned out if a more moderate end to slavery was pursued. The precipitous abolition of slavery dumped several million unskilled and illiterate people into a socio-economic system they were incapable of participating in, and ultimately forced many of them into sharecropping roles that didn't provide any greater opportunity than slavery itself did. The results of that short-sightedness didn't even start to be corrected for about 80 years (black literacy rates remained low - and even declined - up until the early 40's, and then only started to be addressed because of the need for a basic standard of literacy in basic training.)

 

It's just possible that a more moderate approach of educating slaves before emancipating them (though the deep South would still have had to be browbeaten into it) would have resulted in increased participation in the American socio-economic system earlier. While slavery probably would have lasted in to the mid-40's, it's possible that the eventual complete abolition would have resulted in greater civil rights and economic equality earlier.

 

I'm not saying that would have happened (though our resident Retard Rodeo will interpret it that way.) And I'm not a great fan of "alternate history." But it's interesting to contrast the alternate possibilities available at the time with the traditional absolutist-extremist interpretations of history.

[birdog1960]

 

 

You know what is sad is,

 

discriminating minds can easily see the difference between, cowardly, ignorant, attacks by scummy racists, such as the one you described

 

and the honoring of Americans who fought for their states in the Confederacy, such as Robert E Lee.

 

 

But let's not put any thought into the discussion, let's tar everyone with the same brush.

 

 

 

(or is that phrase racist)

 

 

.

do you think it's coincidence that overt racist acts and symbols are so frequently and disproportionately displayed in former confederate states like mississippi?

Edited January 21, 2016 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

 

The interesting corollary to that is to consider how things might have turned out if a more moderate end to slavery was pursued. The precipitous abolition of slavery dumped several million unskilled and illiterate people into a socio-economic system they were incapable of participating in, and ultimately forced many of them into sharecropping roles that didn't provide any greater opportunity than slavery itself did. The results of that short-sightedness didn't even start to be corrected for about 80 years (black literacy rates remained low - and even declined - up until the early 40's, and then only started to be addressed because of the need for a basic standard of literacy in basic training.)

 

It's just possible that a more moderate approach of educating slaves before emancipating them (though the deep South would still have had to be browbeaten into it) would have resulted in increased participation in the American socio-economic system earlier. While slavery probably would have lasted in to the mid-40's, it's possible that the eventual complete abolition would have resulted in greater civil rights and economic equality earlier.

 

I'm not saying that would have happened (though our resident Retard Rodeo will interpret it that way.) And I'm not a great fan of "alternate history." But it's interesting to contrast the alternate possibilities available at the time with the traditional absolutist-extremist interpretations of history.

[birdog1960]

i lived in louisiana during integration. do you remember integration in western new york? anywhere in former union states? me neither.

[FireChan]

so, i'm at my civic club this a.m. and the speaker is a local small college professor (i can already hear the hisses from the snake choir here) that wrote a book about racism in mississippi around the time of james meredith and univ of mississippi episode. ya know, it being the week of mlk holiday and all. and then a member that grew up in mississippi at that time relays a story about a jewish friend bombed out of their house just because her family were civil rights supporters. and i think wow, and were still arguing about honoring the most obvious and well known examples of racists in our nations history. sad. really sad.

What about Jefferson and the crew? Should we take down their monuments?

Edited January 21, 2016 by FireChan