Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[Redfish]

If it was the south trying to hang on to slavery, why was slavery not mentioned as an issue until two years into the civil war? Why was the north allowed to keep slaves for years after the civil war was over?

Why was slavery not mentioned? WTF?

Slavery was mentioned in every state's secession. It was specifically mentioned in the confederate states constitution, and the vice president of the confederacy called it the cornerstone of the secession and of the confederacy. Before Lincoln's election, the southern states had specifically talked about defending their right to own slaves. The idea that it was not mentioned is based either in ignorance or lies.

slavery was not exclusively a southern thing. Slavery existed in the northern and western states as well and continued in some places in the north after the civil war.

No one thinks slavery was right and everyone agrees that it should have been stopped.

slavery exists today in the mid east and Africa, why no liberal outrage about that?

As to the statues in NOLA, if we ignore history we fail to learn from it. But to be consistent, you must demand that the Washington monument be taken down since Washington was a slave owner.

George Washington never took up arms against the United States of America specifically to preserve the institution of slavery.

No, but he and Jefferson were slave owners. They believed that whites were a superior race and that blacks could be sold into slavery. By your own definitions, they were evil, but yet some of our largest monuments are to them.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this subject.

Did I say we should tear down the statue of every person who owned slaves? Again, please point out where I said such a thing.

But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

pretty fine line you are drawing there, dude. but I get it. you have to defend your indefensible position. I understand.

 

[rightwinger]

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me how removing these statues is going to improve the city of New Orleans.

How will this reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

What exactly is this going to accomplish? Anyone?????

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

 

[WinterBorn]

oh yes it was

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. The civil war was not about slavery, there were slaves in the union states AFTER the war ended.

Not for very long. And not on a large scale. What ever slavery there was in the north may have existed after the civil war, but was very short-lived. The civil war ended May 9th 1865. The 13th amendment to the US Constitution was passed by congress in January of 1865 and ratified by the states on December 6th, 1865. So your claim, while possibly technically correct, was only 7 months long.

from:13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
"The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865"

yeah, so what? facts are facts. slavery was not solely a southern institution as claimed by you, winger, and several others.

Would you care to point out where I said it was an exclusively southern institution? Good luck finding that one.

ok, I stand corrected, it was some of your fellow lefties who said that, not you. Happy now?

oh yes it was

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. The civil war was not about slavery, there were slaves in the union states AFTER the war ended.

Not for very long. And not on a large scale. What ever slavery there was in the north may have existed after the civil war, but was very short-lived. The civil war ended May 9th 1865. The 13th amendment to the US Constitution was passed by congress in January of 1865 and ratified by the states on December 6th, 1865. So your claim, while possibly technically correct, was only 7 months long.

from:13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
"The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865"

yeah, so what? facts are facts. slavery was not solely a southern institution as claimed by you, winger, and several others.

Would you care to point out where I said it was an exclusively southern institution? Good luck finding that one.

ok, I stand corrected, it was some of your fellow lefties who said that, not you. Happy now?

I appreciate you admitting the mistake.

As for me being a "leftie" it depends on the topic which name I am called. When we are on this topic or gay marriage ect, I get called a "leftie". When discussing 2nd amendment rights, tax reforms and indivdual freedom, I get called a "rightwinger". Neither is relevant or accurate. But if it helps you feel better, go for it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why was slavery not mentioned? WTF?

Slavery was mentioned in every state's secession. It was specifically mentioned in the confederate states constitution, and the vice president of the confederacy called it the cornerstone of the secession and of the confederacy. Before Lincoln's election, the southern states had specifically talked about defending their right to own slaves. The idea that it was not mentioned is based either in ignorance or lies.

slavery was not exclusively a southern thing. Slavery existed in the northern and western states as well and continued in some places in the north after the civil war.

No one thinks slavery was right and everyone agrees that it should have been stopped.

slavery exists today in the mid east and Africa, why no liberal outrage about that?

As to the statues in NOLA, if we ignore history we fail to learn from it. But to be consistent, you must demand that the Washington monument be taken down since Washington was a slave owner.

George Washington never took up arms against the United States of America specifically to preserve the institution of slavery.

No, but he and Jefferson were slave owners. They believed that whites were a superior race and that blacks could be sold into slavery. By your own definitions, they were evil, but yet some of our largest monuments are to them.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this subject.

Did I say we should tear down the statue of every person who owned slaves? Again, please point out where I said such a thing.

But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

pretty fine line you are drawing there, dude. but I get it. you have to defend your indefensible position. I understand.

Fine line? I think seceding from the union and taking up arms against the US is a pretty significant line.

 

[Redfish]

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me how removing these statues is going to improve the city of New Orleans.

How will this reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

What exactly is this going to accomplish? Anyone?????

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

 

[Redfish]

slavery was not exclusively a southern thing. Slavery existed in the northern and western states as well and continued in some places in the north after the civil war.

No one thinks slavery was right and everyone agrees that it should have been stopped.

slavery exists today in the mid east and Africa, why no liberal outrage about that?

As to the statues in NOLA, if we ignore history we fail to learn from it. But to be consistent, you must demand that the Washington monument be taken down since Washington was a slave owner.

George Washington never took up arms against the United States of America specifically to preserve the institution of slavery.

No, but he and Jefferson were slave owners. They believed that whites were a superior race and that blacks could be sold into slavery. By your own definitions, they were evil, but yet some of our largest monuments are to them.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this subject.

Did I say we should tear down the statue of every person who owned slaves? Again, please point out where I said such a thing.

But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

pretty fine line you are drawing there, dude. but I get it. you have to defend your indefensible position. I understand.

Fine line? I think seceding from the union and taking up arms against the US is a pretty significant line.

sure it is, but the issue is the attempt to remove any reminders of slavery. Why remove small statues of Lee, but leave huge monuments to Washington and Jefferson? if the concern is removing anything that reminds us that there were ever slaves in the USA?

 

[rightwinger]

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me how removing these statues is going to improve the city of New Orleans.

How will this reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

What exactly is this going to accomplish? Anyone?????

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

Blacks were not asked when the monuments went up
But why not have all residents vote on the proper displays honoring the Confederacy?

New Orleans is 60% black.....you ready to stand by the results?

 

[WinterBorn]

George Washington never took up arms against the United States of America specifically to preserve the institution of slavery.

No, but he and Jefferson were slave owners. They believed that whites were a superior race and that blacks could be sold into slavery. By your own definitions, they were evil, but yet some of our largest monuments are to them.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this subject.

Did I say we should tear down the statue of every person who owned slaves? Again, please point out where I said such a thing.

But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

pretty fine line you are drawing there, dude. but I get it. you have to defend your indefensible position. I understand.

Fine line? I think seceding from the union and taking up arms against the US is a pretty significant line.

sure it is, but the issue is the attempt to remove any reminders of slavery. Why remove small statues of Lee, but leave huge monuments to Washington and Jefferson? if the concern is removing anything that reminds us that there were ever slaves in the USA?

If any of my comments were approval of the removal of all statues of people who owned slaves, you might have a point. Since they weren't...

 

[WinterBorn]

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me how removing these statues is going to improve the city of New Orleans.

How will this reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

What exactly is this going to accomplish? Anyone?????

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

I have repeatedly stated that the local community should decide whether the statues stay or go.

Pity you didn't get involved in the other discussions of this same topic.

 

[Redfish]

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

Blacks were not asked when the monuments went up
But why not have all residents vote on the proper displays honoring the Confederacy?

New Orleans is 60% black.....you ready to stand by the results?

yes, absolutely, let the people decide. I have no issue with the majority deciding things like this.

are you ready to stand by the results of a national vote or abortion, for example?

No one was asked when the monuments went up. black or white.

 

[Redfish]

still waiting-----------------------anyone?

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

I have repeatedly stated that the local community should decide whether the statues stay or go.

Pity you didn't get involved in the other discussions of this same topic.

then we are in agreement. I don't spend my entire day on this board, I have a life.

 

[Redfish]

No, but he and Jefferson were slave owners. They believed that whites were a superior race and that blacks could be sold into slavery. By your own definitions, they were evil, but yet some of our largest monuments are to them.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this subject.

Did I say we should tear down the statue of every person who owned slaves? Again, please point out where I said such a thing.

But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

pretty fine line you are drawing there, dude. but I get it. you have to defend your indefensible position. I understand.

Fine line? I think seceding from the union and taking up arms against the US is a pretty significant line.

sure it is, but the issue is the attempt to remove any reminders of slavery. Why remove small statues of Lee, but leave huge monuments to Washington and Jefferson? if the concern is removing anything that reminds us that there were ever slaves in the USA?

If any of my comments were approval of the removal of all statues of people who owned slaves, you might have a point. Since they weren't...

then you want only statues of confederate generals removed? I thought you said the people should decide, which is it?

 

[Camp]

Most of the traitors depicted by those statues should have been hanged and left to rot in the breeze until their remains were eaten by vultures or fell from the ropes to be eaten by rats and critters.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most of the traitors depicted by those statues should have been hanged and left to rot in the breeze until their remains were eaten by vultures or fell from the ropes to be eaten by rats and critters.

No they weren't....

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

just the other day some poster here said something to the effect "the Civil War was NOT about slavery"

hard to believe the confederates are till beating this dead horse, home schooling is a terrible thing!

 

[rightwinger]

Who ever claimed.....Removing monuments will reduce crime? stop poverty? fix the potholes? clean up the French quarter? make the Saints win the super bowl, bring more industry to the city? hire more cops? lower taxes?

There are many things that happen in our daily lives that do none of that

then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?

From Post 704


Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

why not let ALL of the citizens of NOLA vote on this? why only the black ones?

Do you libs ever think rationally about anything?

Do you know that there were black groups protesting the removal of the statues? Did the national media cover that? duh, no.

Blacks were not asked when the monuments went up
But why not have all residents vote on the proper displays honoring the Confederacy?

New Orleans is 60% black.....you ready to stand by the results?

yes, absolutely, let the people decide. I have no issue with the majority deciding things like this.

are you ready to stand by the results of a national vote or abortion, for example?

No one was asked when the monuments went up. black or white.

Most Americans do not want abortion banned

There were no votes when the monuments went up but white city councilmen who were elected by white voters made the decision

 

[Divine Wind]

Translation......What it does do is acknowledge that these monuments are a celebration of slavery and a reminder to blacks of their former status in New Orleans

Why don't we do this.......ask the black residents of New Orleans if they want the monuments to stay.

Are you lying or just misguided? It's so hard to tell with you. OTOH, given your propensity for lying, I'm inclined to think the former.

While, of course, slavery was a big part of the Civil War and the reason the South seceded, the fact there were slaves in the North after the Civil War says a lot about who, exactly, supported slavery. The fact you constantly distort the truth is just more evidence you are a chronic liar.

Reconstruction and its Aftermath, a part of the African American Odyssey exhibition, is about the difficulty free blacks faced during the reconstruction period.
The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 freed African Americans in rebel states, and after the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment emancipated all U.S. slaves wherever they were. As a result, the mass of Southern blacks now faced the difficulty Northern blacks had confronted--that of a free people surrounded by many hostile whites. One freedman, Houston Hartsfield Holloway, wrote, "For we colored people did not know how to be free and the white people did not know how to have a free colored person about them."

Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, two more years of war, service by African American troops, and the defeat of the Confederacy, the nation was still unprepared to deal with the question of full citizenship for its newly freed black population.

Reconstruction - American Civil War - HISTORY.com
At the outset of the Civil War, to the dismay of the more radical abolitionists in the North, President Abraham Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a goal of the Union war effort.

Thirteenth Amendment - Black History - HISTORY.com
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War....

....When the American Civil War (1861-65) began, President Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) carefully framed the conflict as concerning the preservation of the Union rather than the abolition of slavery. Although he personally found the practice of slavery abhorrent, he knew that neither Northerners nor the residents of the border slave states would support abolition as a war aim.

The south formed their own nation to preserve slavery. A nation of 40 percent slave.
The north had less than 5 percent slave population. Mostly in Maryland and Kentucky. The rest of the states had no slaves

slavery was wrong, we all agree. the statues in NOLA are not monuments to slavery any more than the Washington monument is a monument to slavery

Agreed. Or the Jefferson memorial. Sames goes for the slave plantation known as Mt. Vernon and Monticello.

 

[Divine Wind]

....But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

True, but given the times, is there any doubt what side the Virginians George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have sided with had they been alive in 1861?

 

[WinterBorn]

....But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

True, but given the times, is there any doubt what side the Virginians George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have sided with had they been alive in 1861?

Yes, I think there is some doubt. Jefferson struggled with the idea of slavery, as did many of his era.

 

[Divine Wind]

....But there is a huge difference between owning slaves and seceding from the USA and taking up arms against the US to preserve the institution of slavery.

True, but given the times, is there any doubt what side the Virginians George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have sided with had they been alive in 1861?

Yes, I think there is some doubt. Jefferson struggled with the idea of slavery, as did many of his era.

Robert E. Lee struggled too, but in the end, he sided with his "country" Virginia. In those days people were more attached to their state than a distant Federal government.