New Orleans Starts Tearing Down Confederate Monuments, Sparking Protest

nbcnews.com ^ | 4/24/2017 | unknown

[OIFVeteran]

Thanks, I’ve run into these neo-confederate types from time to time, both in real life and online. They always bring out the same old tired arguments. I’ve always wondered why they stay in the US since they seem to hate it so much?

[Shadowstrike]

and yet again you show total lack of understand history.

While it is true that SOME may have fought for slavery MOST did fight for States rights as it was “do as I say, and not as I do” for the North.

The South had a duly elected President, if you must know, and here's a little remembered fact, that is NO longer in the history books (yes, I know the “Victors”,write the history), and that fact is that General Grant, or more accurate his wife REFUSED to give up her slaves and had to have them removed by Force.

I had relatives who fought on BOTH sides, so I “arrogantly” know what I'm talking about.

Your Northern hatred of the South has shown on the entire thread, as has you ignorance of history.

[rockrr]

My best guess is the old adage, “misery loves company.” Their posts don’t convey much happiness, balance, or contentment. They tend towards pitiful critters.

[rockrr]

Which “states right” specifically?

[HandyDandy]

I think his true brilliance is just now coming to the fore as his theories mature. What a gleaming gem of wisdom he just imparted to his readers with the following:

DLThe social pressure was still building though, and eventually the economic forces would have succumbed to the social pressure which was constant and increasing. The Wealthy in the South would have eventually decided that they didn't need slaves, and that the ownership of slaves was becoming gauche.

He probably tells himself this every night before he turns out his "lamp". Southern Slave Power was merely a social faux pas. A passing fad, a flight of fancy.

[central_va]

Here's a good one form the New York Herald 1862 talking about after the war getting rid of the nasty abolitionists and forcing their will on Mexico and Canada.

Then, with our glorious Union reinstated in full strength, and purged of the disorganizing elements of Southern secessionism and Northern abolitionism, we shall be prepared at once to exact atonement and reparation from England and France for the insults which they have inflicted upon us, and for the aid and comfort which they have given to our enemy in a thousand devious ways since the outbreak of this rebellion. Then we shall be prepared to try the force of our republican ideas and institutions in Canada, and to see that justice is done to Mexico.

Link

[central_va]

Feb. 28, 1861 Old Abe Hung in effigy in New York.

No little excitement was created at a New York wharf Monday morning by the effigy of Lincoln hanging from the masthead of the shipsloop Motto, Captain Skipworth. Quite a crowd soon collected on the wharf, which the police tried in vain to disperse. Finally Sergeant Davourney went on board the Motto, and in an authoritative manner, ordered the figure to be lowered. Captain Skipworth refused to comply with the request, on the ground that the police had no business to interfere in such matters. Davourney thereupon called several policemen to his assistance, and rushing upon the Captain carried him off to the Police Court. The case came up before Justice Connolly, and eventually ended in the release of the skipper, on his promises to lower the effigy. The police followed the Captain down to the wharf, in order to see that he fulfilled his promise, and soon afterwards had the satisfaction of bearing off the obnoxious image.

[central_va]

Getting an Army ready to ward off an invasion. A defensive fight expected by all.

Richmond Dispatch June 8th, 1861

Army organization.

The following thoughts and suggestions may not be inopportune at the present moment, when the South is called upon to appeal to arms in defence of its most sacred rights and institutions, against the invasion of the Goths and Vandals of the North. The boasted and highly-cherished liberties of a free people can have no certain and enduring tenure, unless such people show that they are as ready and willing to do their own fighting as they are their own voting.

Whether the fighting to be done is to redress a wrong, or to repel an invasion, it will scarcely ever call for a levy en masse to carry it on; therefore, the services of a portion only of the adult male population is necessary at any one time. To reach the portion or class thus needed is the proper object of military organization. The concert and unity of action, without which an assembly of a great number of men is merely an unwieldy and helpless mass, or a dangerous mob, can only be secured by their obedience and submission to chiefs, under such classifications, divisions, and combinations, as will constitute them into one harmonious body, moved by a common will.

[DoodleDawg]

Why don't you say what you really mean? If another nation has the power and the will to conquer you, you cannot be free. Isn't that the basis upon which Slavery exists?

Because that's not what I meant.

There is that promotion of slavery again. I thought the Northern apologists were supposed to be against forced subjugation?

We're against armed rebellion in defense of slavery.

Something like 3,000 men to unload supplies?

Please stop with the exaggerations, there weren't three thousand men on the resupply fleet.

And no, Lincoln did not convey the secret orders he had given to his agents going to Pickens or Sumter. Those secret orders have never been revealed, but they authorized those men to take command of those ships, (among other things) and those secret orders were issued outside of the normal Naval chain of command.

So if they are secret orders that have never been revealed how do you know what was in them?

It is clear Lincoln intended to trigger hostile action, because his agent sent to fort Pickens expected to be sunk. If he hadn't gotten a war started at Sumter, he was going to get one started at Pickens.

More likely it Davis hadn't gotten the war he wanted at Sumter then he would have found a way to launch it somewhere else.

You think that New York skimming off 40% of all the South's production is a silly claim? I guess you do need to see the map again. Remember 3/4ths of all that money piled on New York came from the South's exports.

So you keep saying.

[DiogenesLamp]

But they didn't interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston at all. Not once.

The Russian tanks stationed on the German border never crossed over. Not once.

Since the Armistice, the Artillery in North Korea never fired on Seoul. Not once.

Most people don't like the idea of living under the guns of a potential enemy. It makes them nervous. Just living under the gun discourages trade.

[DoodleDawg]

The Russian tanks stationed on the German border never crossed over. Not once.

And NATO forces never found the need to fire on those Russian tanks. Not once. Oh if Jeff Davis had been as smart.

Since the Armistice, the Artillery in North Korea never fired on Seoul. Not once.

And again, Korean and U.S. forces have not seen the need to fire on those North Korean artillery pieces. Not once. Probably because the U.S. and Korean governments are not interested in starting a war. Oh if Jeff Davis had been as smart.

Most people don't like the idea of living under the guns of a potential enemy. It makes them nervous.

Most rational leaders aren't interested in starting an unnecessary war.

Just living under the gun discourages trade.

Trade flowed into and out of Charleston just fine during the time Major Anderson was in Fort Sumter. Other than those odd times the Confederates chose to fire on arriving ships that is.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I meant by cooler heads is that the movement for secession would lose steam and the states would voluntarily start returning to the union.

That is possibly true, but it is at most a theory. I suspect after they realized the significant profits they would receive from getting out from under the Tariffs and American Shipping requirements, they would have possibly decided this Independence thing was pretty good for them.

The South was heavily taxed to pay for goods and services in the North, and that does not even include the financial cuts the North was getting from Shipping (American Shipping was virtually required by law, and all was owned by the North East) Banking, Warehousing, and so forth.

I have read that New York was siphoning off 40% of the money made from exporting Southern products. An immediate 40% increase in your cash flow would have been seen as quite a big deal at the time.

In many of the states the vote for secession was close and in some states there is evidence that the fire-breathers fixed the vote for succession. The leaders of the slaveocracy knew this and knew they needed the upper south to give their a rebellion a chance of succeeding.

I'm not following you on this. Why did they need the upper south to give their rebellion a chance of succeeding? Lincoln was going to trade Sumter for Virginia, so it would seem their success lay in the upper south remaining in the union.

This is why Abraham Lincoln said that there would be no war unless the south started it.

And then he immediately did as much as he could think to provoke them. Have you read of what his cabinet suggested he do about Sumter? I believe it was Seward who told him that if they did resupply the fort, they would have a useless fort which they would have to resupply again in six months. Meanwhile secession would become a fait accompli.

Lincoln meant to get a war started either at Sumter or Fort Pickens, where his other man was already in the process of running the confederate defenses and expecting to be sunk.

I do agree that with you on one thing, there is a natural right to rebellion. But there is no right to win a rebellion.

First of all, it was a peaceful secession, not a rebellion, and second of all, there was no right to independence under British Law, but after the founders declared it a God given and fundamental right, it should have been recognized by all and sundry as a right under American Law. I believe it was up until 1861.

When you appeal to force of arms you better hope you win.

South Carolina seceded in 1860, and no significant clash of arms occurred until April of 1861, and that was because of the stubborn resistance of the Leader of the Union to recognize their right to peacefully leave the Union as asserted in the Declaration of Independence.

The Bolshevik’s won their revolution but the people were clearly better off under the czar then they were the reds.

Whether a person or people would be better off doing one thing or another is immaterial to their rights. That people are able to do something foolish is a characteristic of freedom, and if they come to a bad end for doing something foolish, it is still their right to do it.

What would life be like if Nanny State could force us all to behave sensibly?

I would argue that the United States, and the world, is better off because the U.S crushed the southern rebellion.

They crushed an independence movement, and killed 750,000 people doing it, and created billions of dollars worth of economic and social damage in the process. We are still living with the consequences of what they have done to this very day. (Abortion, "gay" Marriage, ban of prayers in schools, and many other issues are indirectly caused by that war.)

As to whether the United States and the World is better off, I cannot say. I think US Meddling in World War I set the world on a path to much destruction. Had the US remained out of that conflict, it may have been resolved in a more long term peace than what actually happened.

Had the US been split into two different countries, there is a more likely chance we would not have interfered in World War I, and therefore there likely would never have been a World War II, or a Korean War, or a Vietnam War. Mao may never have come to power in China, and 100 million people might not have been killed.

It is difficult to say with any certainty what would have been the long term consequences to the World of the Southern States becoming independent, but to say the world is better off for it is not necessarily true.

Maybe it is, but i'm don't see it as being clear cut.

[DiogenesLamp]

A strong component of the desire to separate was to no longer have to deal with the contempt and insults directed at them from the New England puritans.

They regarded them much in the manner that the Liberals of New York and Los Angeles regard conservatives in "fly over country" today.

The hate Liberals feel for us today is the same sort of hate Civil War era Liberals felt for the people of the South back then.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because that's not what I meant.

Well lets reexamine what you said.

"The funny thing is that you can issue all the declarations you want and claim to the heavens that you are a by-God independent nation, but unless the other countries of the world agree with you and recognize you as such you're nothing but a hunk of land with a piece of paper and delusions of sovereignty. Agree or disagree, it's just a fact of life."

I dunno, to me that looks very much like "Might makes Right." If the outcome isn't decided by principles, but is instead decided by force, it reduces to "Might makes right", so that does appear to be what you meant, or at least the same as makes no difference.

We're against armed rebellion in defense of slavery.

Is it the Rebellion part (like the founders) or the Slavery part (like the Union) that you are against? Because if you are being consistent, you are going to have condemn both if you are intending to condemn the South for doing the same thing.

Oh, and the Independence movement didn't start off with arms. They started off with Votes, and letters, and peaceable withdraw. They started off with delegations to negotiate and even offers to pay money to be left alone.

Please stop with the exaggerations, there weren't three thousand men on the resupply fleet.

I've read that there were. How many men were there then?

So if they are secret orders that have never been revealed how do you know what was in them?

Because their existence was acknowledged by some of the participants.

Welles does not say, but in a courtroom it would be reasonably found that if Lincoln did not dictate the terms of Welles’s orders to the sea captains, at least he knew what the terms were. It was through his subsequent secret order, dated April 1, but delivered to Captain Mercer on April 6 by the hand of Lt. David D. Porter, that Lincoln pulled off his trick.

If you look into this, you discover Lincoln purposely avoided sending orders through the Navy department because he believed it was full of Confederate spies and sympathizers.

But it demands the question. Why secret orders for a "resupply" mission of which he sent formal word?

More likely it Davis hadn't gotten the war he wanted at Sumter then he would have found a way to launch it somewhere else.

Here is what the The Buffalo Daily Courier said on April 16, 1861.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…. If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces, had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished."

So you keep saying.

You have a short memory. In one of the older Civil War threads I cited the references for that number. I could probably find it again, but I don't think it is worth my trouble because I don't think you really care if it is true or not.

[DiogenesLamp]

And NATO forces never found the need to fire on those Russian tanks. Not once. Oh if Jeff Davis had been as smart.

Patton wanted to do so, but his President was less interested in bloodshed than was Lincoln, and so they have lived with Russian guns pointed at them for 70 years.

And again, Korean and U.S. forces have not seen the need to fire on those North Korean artillery pieces. Not once. Probably because the U.S. and Korean governments are not interested in starting a war.

You haven't been paying attention to North Korea lately, have you?

Most rational leaders aren't interested in starting an unnecessary war.

Lincoln was rational, and he needed that war, so he did everything he could to make certain that it started. From his perspective it wasn't irrational to get a war started, it was a financial necessity. Without that Blockade, the South would have stolen 75% of the European trade from the North, and it would have caused massive financial damage to Northern Industry as well as his government, and this scenario doesn't even touch on the losses to Northern industry and to their political power which would be caused by Southern Industries supplying the Midwest through the Mississippi river.

It was massive financial losses and evaporating political power for them if a war did not commence.

Trade flowed into and out of Charleston just fine during the time Major Anderson was in Fort Sumter.

Already covered that. The possibility of Union interdiction of trade does in itself hurt trade. It conveys the impression that something may happen at any time that results in the loss of all cargo, and perhaps vessels and men.

Business hates uncertainty, and will tend to avoid it if the risk looks too great.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks, I’ve run into these neo-confederate types from time to time, both in real life and online. They always bring out the same old tired arguments. I’ve always wondered why they stay in the US since they seem to hate it so much?

I've run across these people who cannot help but try to lump people into a group whether they actually fit or not. I have no emotional investment in the Confederacy, none of my family were in the US during the Civil War, nor did any of us settle in any of the Confederate States.

I merely recognize that the principle of self determination as articulated in the Declaration of Independence should have allowed the South to be free of the Union if it so wished. I recognize that Independence is a human right, and that it should be supported. We recognized this right for Cuba, and we recognized this right for the Philippines, and we have recognized this right for many other US holdings. (Such as Puerto Rico)

It is just that there are many of you who refuse to apply the same standard to States that wished to be free because you are caught up in a bunch of emotional positions that have been fed to you your whole lives.

I cannot say you have lost your objectivity, because you have never looked at this issue with any objectivity. The existing system of indoctrination is designed to prevent a detached analysis of the events in question.

I grew up with the same thinking as you, and it was only by accident that a friend of mine (who is black) informed me that the Civil War was not at all what it has always appeared to me to be.

I had a catalyst that transformed me from believing as do you, to believing as I do now. I realized that much of what I had been told didn't fit the historical facts, so one of these things had to be wrong.

I discovered that it is what I had been taught.

[DoodleDawg]

Patton wanted to do so, but his President was less interested in bloodshed than was Lincoln, and so they have lived with Russian guns pointed at them for 70 years.

Patton wasn't around when NATO was formed. If you're going to come up with lame analogies then please keep them historically accurate.

You haven't been paying attention to North Korea lately, have you?

I thought I had. When did we start shelling North Korea???

Lincoln was rational, and he needed that war, so he did everything he could to make certain that it started.

So does that mean that Davis was irrational when he started his war? And what crying need prompted Davis to start hostilities at Sumter? Was he trying to help Lincoln? Too stupid to see through Lincoln's trap? Which?

. From his perspective it wasn't irrational to get a war started, it was a financial necessity. Without that Blockade, the South would have stolen 75% of the European trade from the North, and it would have caused massive financial damage to Northern Industry as well as his government, and this scenario doesn't even touch on the losses to Northern industry and to their political power which would be caused by Southern Industries supplying the Midwest through the Mississippi river.

How? Upwards of 95% of all imports entered through Northern ports. Upwards of 85% of all cotton exports left through Southern ports. How would that have changed with an independent Confederacy?

Already covered that. The possibility of Union interdiction of trade does in itself hurt trade. It conveys the impression that something may happen at any time that results in the loss of all cargo, and perhaps vessels and men.

But nothing had happened. The only time ships entering or leaving Charleston were fired on was when the Rebel batteries fired on them.

Business hates uncertainty, and will tend to avoid it if the risk looks too great.

No indication that they were avoiding Charleston.

[DiogenesLamp]

Patton wasn't around when NATO was formed. If you're going to come up with lame analogies then please keep them historically accurate.

Yes, there were no Russian Tanks threatening Germany and the Allied Forces until NATO came along.

Too stupid to see through Lincoln's trap?

This is the one I would go with. To be fair, Lincoln was quite good at public manipulation and conniving.

How? Upwards of 95% of all imports entered through Northern ports.

That is pretty much true, but do you know why? Once you answer that question, you will understand why New York wanted to keep that money coming in, and why a war was necessary to do it. Had the South become independent, probably 80% of all imports would have entered through Charleston.

Upwards of 85% of all cotton exports left through Southern ports.

Not just Cotton, but 75% of all exports. Does that not demand an obvious question? Why was the exported product going out of Southern ports but the *MONEY* coming back in through Northern ports?

How would that have changed with an independent Confederacy?

That money pile represented by Tariff collections on top of New York would have moved over to Charleston South Carolina.

With their own banking, warehousing and shipping industries, and without laws forcing the usage of shipping located in the New York area, the vast majority of that European Trade would have come directly to the ports from which 75% of all trade products were exported.

The New York middlemen would have been cut out of the trade.

But nothing had happened.

You are ignoring and minimizing the injury to trade that having a fortress full of potential belligerents would have on commerce. Who wants to send a ship into a port where a potential armed dispute could break out at any time?

No indication that they were avoiding Charleston.

Because you somehow know that the Europeans sent all the trade they might have if there had been no potential conflict there? It took a ship at least a month to go from Europe to the US (if they were fast) and so it's a minimum of a two month round trip just to scope out the situation there. South Carolina seceded in late December of 1860, and by April of 1861, it was clear that there would be a war.

You have a tiny 4 month window in which to determine the effect on trade of having a fortress occupied by your previous rivals in the entrance to your harbor.

I dare say the merchants in Charleston probably didn't need a lot of evidence to believe it was bad for trade. I dare say any sensible person would regard this as pretty obvious.

Your statement that there is "no indication they were avoiding Charleston" completely misses the point. Had South Carolina been successful in obtaining independence from the control of Washington and New York, Trade that normally flowed to New York would have instead been going to Charleston.

With the much lower tariffs and with potentials to make far larger profits in Charleston, the European ships would have sailed the extra 800 miles to get to Charleston. It would have been well worth their efforts, and their profits would have increased dramatically.

The only thing that could have kept them away was a threat of violence, and that is exactly what happened.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes, there were no Russian Tanks threatening Germany and the Allied Forces until NATO came along.

Your analogies make no sense. You offer two examples where two sides faced off against each other and neither one saw the need to escalate into a shooting war. In Sumter you had two sides facing off against each other, and the South saw the need to attack rather than maintain the status quo. The two are not remotely similar...unless you're holding Sumter up as an example not to follow?

This is the one I would go with. To be fair, Lincoln was quite good at public manipulation and conniving.

So your excuse was that the South was so ungodly stupid that they fell right into Lincoln's trap and started the war he wanted? Doesn't speak highly of them, does it?

That is pretty much true, but do you know why? Once you answer that question, you will understand why New York wanted to keep that money coming in, and why a war was necessary to do it. Had the South become independent, probably 80% of all imports would have entered through Charleston.

The only reason I can think of is that all those imports went to New York because that's where the demand for them was. Why would that change with an independent Confederacy?

Not just Cotton, but 75% of all exports.

Cotton was the largest U.S. export, yes.

Does that not demand an obvious question? Why was the exported product going out of Southern ports but the *MONEY* coming back in through Northern ports?

Because the demand for the imports was in the North and not the South?

That money pile represented by Tariff collections on top of New York would have moved over to Charleston South Carolina.

Nonsense. Goods destined for Northern consumers would have continued to go to Northern ports. Goods destined for Southern consumers would have gone to Southern ports. That was true before the separation and would be true after the separation.

[DiogenesLamp]

The only reason I can think of is that all those imports went to New York because that's where the demand for them was.

And where did New Yorkers get the money to pay for anything? Non Southern exports accounted for 25% of the value of the total, so if you stretch it you might claim that New York could pay for 25% of the imports they received.

Trade equations must balance over time. New York wasn't exporting anything sufficient to account for their imports.

Because the demand for the imports was in the North and not the South?

"Demand" for import can be in Timbuktu, but if they don't have the money to pay for it the "Supply" won't come to them.

You really need to get this money thing worked out so that you can understand it. You see, you have to pay *MONEY* to get back products. Your "Demand" is irrelevant without the financial capital to purchase it, and New York didn't produce the Financial capital necessary to purchase those European products coming into it's harbor.

The South did. *THAT* is where the money was coming from. It went out as Southern Products, and came back as European products in exchange.

New York and it's cartel of politicians in league with it, jiggered the laws to favor all the imports coming into the country through New York. As someone else had put it, the system dragged the trade 800 miles off it's normal course.

Nonsense. Goods destined for Northern consumers would have continued to go to Northern ports.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY. They couldn't buy anything with money they didn't have. The money came from Southern exports, and the only money New York could amass was from siphoning off in shipping fees, banking fees, warehouse fees, and so forth from the Southern money.

It was a racket, but because the North had the political advantage in Congress, there was nothing the South could do to stop it. (Except leaving.)

The North had the votes, and their majority in Congress had simply decreed that the South produced money would by the action of several laws, continue to flow into New York and there enrich it's industries.

South Carolina was very much aware of this situation, as indicated by this address given at South Carolina's secession convention

"The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

"...The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.