Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From Post 704then exactly what will it accomplish, winger? this is a serious question. What is taking down historical statues going to accomplish?
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
Agreed. Or the Jefferson memorial. Sames goes for the slave plantation known as Mt. Vernon and Monticello.The south formed their own nation to preserve slavery. A nation of 40 percent slave.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.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.
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 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
It's just snowflake political correctness run amok.Agreed. Or the Jefferson memorial. Sames goes for the slave plantation known as Mt. Vernon and Monticello.The south formed their own nation to preserve slavery. A nation of 40 percent slave.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.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.
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 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
Yes, if the goal is to destroy all things that remind us of slavery then those monuments and plantations that you mentioned must be removed. But that's not what this is really about, is it?
Well, you know they have a point.You are engaged in turn speaking yet again, where_r. Now we will wait for your parroting.You're not getting it.
There is a formula.
White + evangelical + uneducated + Nascar fan + Gay hater + Republican + dental problems + religious intolerance + trailer park + no plumbing = redneck.
There is a lot more to being a redneck
Why go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice?
Ummm, neither Hitler, Stalin nor slave owners were liberals. The Founders were liberals. It was the fucking Tories who were "conservatives".Well, you know they have a point.You are engaged in turn speaking yet again, where_r. Now we will wait for your parroting.You're not getting it.
There is a formula.
White + evangelical + uneducated + Nascar fan + Gay hater + Republican + dental problems + religious intolerance + trailer park + no plumbing = redneck.
There is a lot more to being a redneck
Why go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice?
I mean it was Liberals who owned Slaves. Hitler was a liberal. Stalin was a Liberal. Southern Segregationists were Liberals. Liberals are huge racists, and Conservatives have been trying to get them to stop that forever.
Irony is so hard to convey in textUmmm, neither Hitler, Stalin nor slave owners were liberals. The Founders were liberals. It was the fucking Tories who were "conservatives".Well, you know they have a point.You are engaged in turn speaking yet again, where_r. Now we will wait for your parroting.You're not getting it.
There is a formula.
White + evangelical + uneducated + Nascar fan + Gay hater + Republican + dental problems + religious intolerance + trailer park + no plumbing = redneck.
There is a lot more to being a redneck
Why go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice?
I mean it was Liberals who owned Slaves. Hitler was a liberal. Stalin was a Liberal. Southern Segregationists were Liberals. Liberals are huge racists, and Conservatives have been trying to get them to stop that forever.
That said, all the assholes who call themselves liberals today are as liberal as Stalin and Mao. IE, they aren't. They're Totalitarian Socialists. Complete fucking assholes who support a Nanny State.
Well, you know they have a point.You are engaged in turn speaking yet again, where_r. Now we will wait for your parroting.You're not getting it.
There is a formula.
White + evangelical + uneducated + Nascar fan + Gay hater + Republican + dental problems + religious intolerance + trailer park + no plumbing = redneck.
There is a lot more to being a redneck
Why go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice?
I mean it was Liberals who owned Slaves. Hitler was a liberal. Stalin was a Liberal. Southern Segregationists were Liberals. Liberals are huge racists, and Conservatives have been trying to get them to stop that forever.
That said, all the assholes who call themselves liberals today are as liberal as Stalin and Mao.
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
Then lets have a national referendum on abortion. Lets do it. I am just fine with letting the people decide, are you? Would you accept a decision to ban it nationally except for certain very restrictive conditions? Are you ready to put PP, the abortion mill, out of business?
I don't know what or who authorized those statues, if you do I would be interested in seeing it. Your asinine assumption that evil southern white people did it is just stupid.
Then lets have a national referendum
The modern trend towards revisionist Civil War history views the Confederate leadership as treasonous traitors now.New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?
First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.
This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.
And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.
Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?
Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?
Good map.The maxim that "the victors write the history books" is exemplified by the so-called "history of the Civil War"....But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. ....
The South didn't start the Civil War. Southern states seceded from the Union over slavery. President Lincoln attacked the South to drag them back into the Union against their will. This is shown by the fact that most battles took place in the South. If the South had started the war, wouldn't most battles have been in the North?
President Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley is a confession to this fact.
Then lets have a national referendum
We could have a national referendum on a lot of things. Power to the people and all that, huh Fishy?
The modern trend towards revisionist Civil War history views the Confederate leadership as treasonous traitors now.New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?
First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.
This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.
And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.
Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?
Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?
Back then that was too politically sensitive.
Ergo today their monuments and statues are obsolete relics -- as they should have been 152 years ago.
Museums are a great place for these statues of these traitors.
Good map.The maxim that "the victors write the history books" is exemplified by the so-called "history of the Civil War"....But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. ....
The South didn't start the Civil War. Southern states seceded from the Union over slavery. President Lincoln attacked the South to drag them back into the Union against their will. This is shown by the fact that most battles took place in the South. If the South had started the war, wouldn't most battles have been in the North?
President Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley is a confession to this fact.
The rebel legislatures should have taken their case for secession to the SCOTUS.
Instead they rebelled without any legal justification.
So secession was an illegal act.
Lincoln had no choice. The rebels were seizing arms and digging in.
The modern trend towards revisionist Civil War history views the Confederate leadership as treasonous traitors now.New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?
First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.
This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.
And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.
Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?
Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?
Back then that was too politically sensitive.
Ergo today their monuments and statues are obsolete relics -- as they should have been 152 years ago.
Museums are a great place for these statues of these traitors.
Then lets have a national referendum
We could have a national referendum on a lot of things. Power to the people and all that, huh Fishy?
isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work. The will of the people and all that?
Don't care about the monuments, personally, but most of the rest of this is nonsense. Was it treason for the colonists to take up arms against the lawfully elected government of Great Britain? Should we write an apology letter to Her Majesty and beg for her to take us evil traitors back? Also, the Confederates didn't start the Civil War, per se. They fired the first shots at Fort Sumter, of course, but Lincoln purposefully provoked them into doing so because he knew how they would respond. So it's hard to say the south is solely responsible for starting the war.New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?
First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.
This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.
And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.
Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?
Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?
Two-thirds of Americans want abortions beyond the first trimester banned. And that is in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade.Most Americans do not want abortion banned
