Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Orleans Starts Tearing Down Confederate Monuments, Sparking Protest
nbcnews.com ^ | 4/24/2017 | unknown

Posted on 04/24/2017 5:49:29 AM PDT by rktman

New Orleans officials removed the first of four prominent Confederate monuments early Monday, the latest Southern institution to sever itself from symbols viewed by many as a representation racism and white supremacy.

The first memorial to come down was the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.

Workers arrived to begin removing the statue, which commemorates whites who tried to topple a biracial post-Civil War government in New Orleans, around 1:25 a.m. in an attempt to avoid disruption from supporters who want the monuments to stay, some of whom city officials said have made death threats.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; bluezones; dixie; heritagenothate; historyerased; monuments; nola; purge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-324 next last
To: rktman

Confederate monuments are participation trophies for old folks.


141 posted on 04/24/2017 4:30:26 PM PDT by Southack (The one thing preppers need from the 1st World? http://tinyurl.com/ktfwljc .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Not strange at all. Those counties, along with St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans parishes, had been liberated from the confederate forces. Since they were no longer in rebellion then the federal government couldn't legally end slavery there.

That is "f***ed up several kinds of ways. So basically the statement is still true, that slavery existed longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy.

Kinda blows a big hole in "the War was fought over slavery" narrative. As i've said before, it was fought so Washington D.C. could maintain economic control over the South's money and trade.

142 posted on 04/24/2017 4:35:11 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The North invaded the South in 1861. Right dude. In your universe.


143 posted on 04/24/2017 4:39:11 PM PDT by jmacusa (Dad may be in charge but mom knows whats going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
They burned the guns at Ft. Moultrie.

How was that hostile? As commander at Moultrie, Anderson could take whatever steps he thought necessary to protect his forces. Burning the gun carriages was no threat to Charleston or its population.

144 posted on 04/24/2017 4:41:27 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
That is "f***ed up several kinds of ways. So basically the statement is still true, that slavery existed longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy.

Since the Confederacy was never really an independent, sovereign nation then your statement is basically correct.

Kinda blows a big hole in "the War was fought over slavery" narrative.

Depends on which side you're referring to. For the North, it was not over slavery. For the South, it was.

As i've said before, it was fought so Washington D.C. could maintain economic control over the South's money and trade.

So you keep saying. I'm mildly surprised that you haven't hauled out that tariff collection picture of yours.

145 posted on 04/24/2017 4:44:59 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: x

If anyone doesn’t like being stereotyped all they have to do is live a life that DISPROVES it. If the negatives are true I’d own them or change them.


146 posted on 04/24/2017 4:51:08 PM PDT by ClearBlueSky (ISLAM is the problem. ISLAM is the enemy of civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
Bitsy: "the left hates when people get along. It doesn’t follow the Marxist agenda."

Even more important, if people get along just fine, why would they ever want to vote for Democrats?

147 posted on 04/24/2017 5:04:56 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; jmacusa
Ruy Dias de Bivar: "The Indian tribes joined the Confederacy and went to war, from Canada to Mexico.
Would you also attack them with the same vigor as the North did the Confederacy? The Indians continued their war against the Union long after the Civil War was over."

And your point here is what?
You may remember a famous Civil War cavalry officer, had a big day at Gettysburg in 1863, George Custer... how did he end up?

148 posted on 04/24/2017 5:11:13 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

MY POINT IS THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT JUST A SOUTHERN SLAVERY THING!


149 posted on 04/24/2017 6:34:11 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ("You know Caligula?" --- "Worse! Caligula knows me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: x

You have it backward. The Union did everything they could to destroy the CSA. They ultimate goal of the CSA was to co-exist with the USA. But the Goon and his henchmen would have none of that.


150 posted on 04/24/2017 6:45:17 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

your self righteous arrogance is showing, as well as your ignorance.


151 posted on 04/24/2017 7:19:02 PM PDT by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Fort Moultrie was left in ashes"

You are out of your mind.

152 posted on 04/24/2017 8:39:13 PM PDT by HandyDandy ("I reckon so. I guess we all died a little in that damn war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: central_va; x
central_va: "They ultimate goal of the CSA was to co-exist with the USA."

Last thread it was "stalemate" this time "co-exist", but neither is accurate.
In fact, what the Confederates wanted was to grab off as many USA states & territories as possible.
In addition to the original eleven CSA states (one-third of all USA states), Confederates claimed two more (Missouri & Kentucky), sent Confederate armies into five more plus two territories (Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Oklahoma & New Mexico) and ran guerilla operations in at least four more (Colorado, California, Kansas & Vermont).

Bottom line: what you call "co-exist" or "stalemate" Confederates wished to achieve only after they had effectively destroyed the United States.

153 posted on 04/25/2017 5:37:46 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Bottom line: what you call "co-exist" or "stalemate" Confederates wished to achieve only after they had effectively destroyed the United States.

You are an idiot. From minute one the CSA was in survival mode. The USA, while fighting a war in the South, built and equipped the largest Army in the world, managed to build the inter continental railroad and the westward expansion continued unabated. There was no threat to the USA, ever. It was just smaller but still expanding and getting more powerful day by day.

154 posted on 04/25/2017 5:50:05 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: central_va

People who live in glass insane asylums shouldn’t throw stones. Propping up another nation while occupying the same property would have resulted in an existential threat to the united States even if the confeds had actually acted as though they “just wanted to be left alone”.

They set themselves as enemy combatants to The United States with evil intentions and their ability to finish what they started (or not in this case) was irrelevant.


155 posted on 04/25/2017 7:03:17 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; jmacusa; x; rockrr; rktman; Ruy Dias de Bivar; central_va
jmacusa: "The North didn't go to war to free the slaves Lampster.
The South sure went to war to keep though."

DiogenesLamp: "You keep saying that, but this is factually incorrect.
According to the North, Slavery wasn't under any threat, so your claim doesn't even make sense on the face of it. "

In fact, Deep South Fire Eaters were not in the least reluctant to record that they declared secession in order to protect slavery, which they believed was under threat by "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
Republicans at the time said they did not threaten slavery, in the South, only in those western territories which didn't want it.
Constitutionally, that's all they could do.

War began because secessionists in early 1861 demanded military action, if necessary to remove Union troops from Union Fort Sumter, and by April 12 Jefferson Davis decided a military assault was necessary and so ordered it.

Some people argue that Fort Sumter did not begin Civil War, after all, no one was killed in battle.
But people at the time North and South understood that Civil War began at Fort Sumter.
Here are examples of newspaper reports after Fort Sumter's surrender:

  1. ◾"The War Commenced!," Fremont Journal Extra (Fremont, OH), April 13, 1861, Saturday Morning, Page 1, Image 1, col. 1-2.

  2. ◾"Latest War News!! Anderson Surrenders!," Memphis Daily Appeal (Memphis, TN), April 14, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 3-6.

  3. ◾"The Pro-Slavery War, The Bombardment of Fort Sumter," New-York Daily Tribune (New York, NY), April 15, 1861, Page 5, Image 5, col. 1.

  4. ◾"Hostilities Commenced! Bombardment of Fort Sumter!!," Daily Nashville Patriot (Nashville, TN), April 16, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 4.

  5. ◾"Civil War Begun--Fort Sumter Taken," Western Reserve Chronicle (Warren, OH), April 17, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 1-5.

  6. ◾"War Begun!," The Jeffersonian (Stroudsburg, PA), April 18, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 2.

  7. ◾"Fort Sumter Given Up!!," The Anderson Intelligencer (Anderson Court House, SC), April 17, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 2-5.

  8. ◾"War Begun! The Traitors Fire the First Gun!," The Alleghenian (Ebensburg, PA), April 18, 1861, Page 2, Image 2, col. 1.

Point is: in early 1861 there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Deep South slave-holders declared secession to protect slavery and that Civil War started at Fort Sumter.

156 posted on 04/25/2017 7:09:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

You are f-ing insane.


157 posted on 04/25/2017 7:12:25 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I imagine that from your side of the bars everyone looks insane. I notice that even your lost cause comrades don’t share your POV.

Telling


158 posted on 04/25/2017 7:14:46 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Ok find ONE contemporary letter, correspondence or newspaper article from the time period that thought or ever insinuated that the USA, after secession, was in mortal danger? You won't find any. Because you are fascist thug you can't realize that the part of the USA that was left after secession was huge viable country and that an independent CSA also had a right to exit. You think that when the CSA seceded that ENDED the Union. How utterly preposterous.

Both sides knew that the South's chance of holding off an invasion were slim from the beginning-day one.

You know what? The people of the South didn't need saving save for the Union that was doing just fine; their Army and Lincoln were pretty terrifying for a "destroyed" Union.

159 posted on 04/25/2017 7:31:05 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“fascist thug”? Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? The reason I ask is because anti-American pieces of shyt are going around calling patriots like me “fascists”.

LOL


160 posted on 04/25/2017 7:40:06 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-324 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson