In celebration of N.O., LA

Sardonicus

New Orleans to remove four prominent Confederate monuments after mayor approves bill

Published December 17, 2015 

 FoxNews.com

Four prominent Confederate monuments in New Orleans were slated for removal Thursday, ending a months-long process that began in the aftermath of the killing of nine African Methodist Church members in Charleston, S.C., by a white supremacist last June.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat, approved the removal by signing legislation only hours after the city council voted 6-1 in favor of the move. In order for New Orleans to move forward, "we must reckon with our past," Landrieu told the council ahead of the vote.

The new law takes aim at statuary memorializing three prominent Confederate figures: Confederate President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and General P.G.T. Beauregard, a Louisiana native.

The fourth monument honors the former Crescent City White League, a chapter of a white supremacist paramilitary organization active in the 1870's.

The removal of that monument is subject to a federal court order. The city will now take the legal steps needed for that to happen.

Landrieu said the process to remove three of the monuments will begin within days by finding a contractor to take them down. He said it will cost about $170,000 to remove them. The city previously has said an anonymous donor has offered to pay for the work, according to the Associated Press.

He first proposed taking down these monuments after a white supremacist allegedly killed nine parishioners inside the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in June.

Anti-Confederate sentiment has grown since then around the country, along with protests against police mistreatment, as embodied by the Black Lives Matter movement.

The most imposing of the monuments to be struck from the cityscape under the new law has had a commanding position over St. Charles Avenue since 1884: A 16-foot-tall bronze statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee stands atop a 60-foot-high Doric marble column, which itself rises over granite slabs on an earthen mound. Four sets of stone staircases, aligned with the major compass points, ascend the mound.

Above it all, the Virginian stands in his military uniform, with his arms folded and his gaze set firmly on the North.

A bronze figure of Confederate President Jefferson Davis that now stands at Canal Street and Jefferson Davis Parkway will be removed, along with a statue of a more local hero, Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, who straddles a prancing horse at the entrance to City Park. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard was born in St. Bernard Parish, and commanded Confederate forces in the war's first battle.

The most controversial monument is an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League. An inscription added in 1932 said the Yankees withdrew federal troops and "recognized white supremacy in the South" after the group challenged Louisiana's biracial government after the Civil War.

In 1993, these words were covered by a granite slab with a new inscription, saying the obelisk honors "Americans on both sides" who died and that the conflict "should teach us lessons for the future."

The city says it plans to put the monuments in a warehouse until officials decide where they should be put in the future -- perhaps in a museum or a park.

Landrieu said the monuments reinforce the Confederate ideology of slavery, limit city progress and divide the city. He used President Abraham Lincoln's famous quote: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

City Council President Jason Williams called the vote a symbolic severing of an "umbilical cord" tying the city to the offensive legacy of the Confederacy and the era of Jim Crow laws.

"If anybody wins here, it will be the South, because it is finally rising," . . .

lousubcap

Friday night teaser...and away we go.

Hotch

I think I will not comment on this one.

fishlessman

what a strange world the problems up here are way worse, this statue of general lafayette was built facing france but the french community behind it didnt like looking up the horses arse, so its been turned several times

Darby_Crenshaw

yankee here.

not a fan of sanitizing the past. 

didn't read what the objections were to the statues of the three generals, if anything more than that they existed.  seems a shame.

the obelisk seems a bit more touchy, and although i don't know enough about it, if there's anything related to white supremacy on it or still apparent, then i can understand the offense.

but taking down statues of generals merely because they participated in the war?  overly PC in my mind. if it is a case of them saying something or even having done something offensive, then we're gonna have to take down a lot of statues.  if we expect only statues of perfect people, then they ALL have to come down.

we have statues of Pilgrims here nearby.  perhaps we should take them down for the literal war the Puritans carried on to eliminate the natives who were here when they arrived.

i rather think it's better to leave them up, and deal with the subject frankly and openly. 

Sardonicus

Darby_Crenshaw said:

yankee here.

not a fan of sanitizing the past.  . . .
i rather think it's better to leave them up, and deal with the subject frankly and openly. 

That's one approach.  Of course, many of those in favor of that course choose it not for the reason you cite but rather to celebrate the idea/ideals of the Confederacy.

Apparently, the people of NOLA - perhaps interpretating the true nature of the idea/ideals of the Confederacy as less than noble - prefer its symbols removed from public lands.

Apparently. 

Ozzie_Isaac

Darby_Crenshaw

i'm not debating you sardonicus. 

and i mentioned not knowing the full story behind the rationale for removing each statue.

i just find either extreme (villifying or worshipping) to be, well, an extreme, a simplification

Sardonicus

Darby_Crenshaw said:

i'm not debating you sardonicus. 

and i mentioned not knowing the full story behind the rationale for removing each statue.

i just find either extreme (villifying or worshipping) to be, well, an extreme, a simplification

Nor I, you.  Just replying - conversationally.

As for 'extreme simplification', considered discrimination should not fall into that category, IMO.
Goering is not vilified simply because he "participated in the war."  Likewise Lt. Calley.  And others.

Conversely, McCain may not have been entirely chivalrous regarding his ex-wife, yet he's still considered a hero by many.  And Clinton, though a cad, is considered by many to have been a great president.
Goering may have loved his family and Calley was probably kind to animals.  Those traits don't speak to their sum, though.

History, as life, isn't black and white.  It's varying shades of gray.
Our values dictate who we choose to venerate or vilify.  

It's up to us to navigate the gray areas by our own compass and choose whom to honor or despise.

New Orleans has made its choice.

henapple

Liberals are more concerned over crap that happened 150 years ago and ignores the terrorists we face now. Put some statues up of the "gentle giant" Micheal Brown. 

If you're going to tear down **** that pisses people off... Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, Mount Vernon... They all have to go. 

Sardonicus

Dr. Rorschach was right on target!

henapple

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/09/while-we-fight-over-trump-france-closes-3-mosques-finds-hundreds-of-weapons/

Davec433

We spend more time trying to right every wrong that happened in the past and worrying about who will offend. Their is a whole industry built upon making sure people know they were victimized. Utter nonsense and we should spend more time on looking forward then worrying about the past.

bgebrent

Just wondering how $170,000 could've actually changed lives in NO?

henapple

There's not a country that wasn't built on blood...... I'm for reparations. That's it. 

Davec433

They're will never be reperations because then the so called debt would be paid. Nobody wants that.

leemschu

henapple said:

Liberals are more concerned over crap that happened 150 years ago and ignores the terrorists we face now. Put some statues up of the "gentle giant" Micheal Brown. 

If you're going to tear down **** that pisses people off... Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, Mount Vernon... They all have to go. 

Bravo sir, bravo. I am so tired of hearing about crap like this. Just like you said we can't face what's happening now because we have a bunch of morons and pansies running the country in my opinion. It's never terrorism because now a days that suggests a certain group of people and that might offend someone.

Hotch

henapple said:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/09/while-we-fight-over-trump-france-closes-3-mosques-finds-hundreds-of-weapons/

Hell I may start to like the French.
Carry on...

Ozzie_Isaac

JethroVA

I'm related to Robert E. Lee. and I qualify to be a SCV.   I'd have a hard time pulling down his statue.  Especially since he was the first choice of the president to be the leader of the northern army and he declined because he could not lift his sword against his fellow Virginians. 

JethroVA

I predict the buffalo before noon tomorrow.  

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

Darby_Crenshaw said:

i'm not debating you sardonicus. 

and i mentioned not knowing the full story behind the rationale for removing each statue.

i just find either extreme (villifying or worshipping) to be, well, an extreme, a simplification

Nor I, you.  Just replying - conversationally.

As for 'extreme simplification', considered discrimination should not fall into that category, IMO.
Goering is not vilified simply because he "participated in the war."  Likewise Lt. Calley.  And others.

Conversely, McCain may not have been entirely chivalrous regarding his ex-wife, yet he's still considered a hero by many.  And Clinton, though a cad, is considered by many to have been a great president.
Goering may have loved his family and Calley was probably kind to animals.  Those traits don't speak to their sum, though.

History, as life, isn't black and white.  It's varying shades of gray.
Our values dictate who we choose to venerate or vilify.  

It's up to us to navigate the gray areas by our own compass and choose whom to honor or despise.

New Orleans has made its choice.

Very well said @Sardonicus. I just wonder how this action helps. Does it enlighten the ignorant now or in the future? The symbols definitely will be offensive to many and benign to others and yet, possibly an honored symbol to others . We really could use more open and honest history discussions in this country that "navigates the gray" from various perspectives. I am not nearly as informed on some of these issues as I would like, as a Yankee.
  I took my children to Oahu to visit the Pearl Harbor memorial.  I'm glad it was still there. I know it isn't apples to apples. Oh well, good discussion. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

Darby_Crenshaw said:

i'm not debating you sardonicus. 

and i mentioned not knowing the full story behind the rationale for removing each statue.

i just find either extreme (villifying or worshipping) to be, well, an extreme, a simplification

Nor I, you.  Just replying - conversationally.

As for 'extreme simplification', considered discrimination should not fall into that category, IMO.
Goering is not vilified simply because he "participated in the war."  Likewise Lt. Calley.  And others.

Conversely, McCain may not have been entirely chivalrous regarding his ex-wife, yet he's still considered a hero by many.  And Clinton, though a cad, is considered by many to have been a great president.
Goering may have loved his family and Calley was probably kind to animals.  Those traits don't speak to their sum, though.

History, as life, isn't black and white.  It's varying shades of gray.
Our values dictate who we choose to venerate or vilify.  

It's up to us to navigate the gray areas by our own compass and choose whom to honor or despise.

New Orleans has made its choice.

Very well said @Sardonicus. I just wonder how this action helps. Does it enlighten the ignorant now or in the future? The symbols definitely will be offensive to many and benign to others and yet, possibly an honored symbol to others . We really could use more open and honest history discussions in this country that "navigates the gray" from various perspectives. I am not nearly as informed on some of these issues as I would like, as a Yankee.
  I took my children to Oahu to visit the Pearl Harbor memorial.  I'm glad it was still there. I know it isn't apples to apples. Oh well, good discussion. 

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?!?

pgprescott

Huh? @JohnInCarolina. Sorry, I missed it. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

Huh? @JohnInCarolina. Sorry, I missed it. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

Huh? @JohnInCarolina. Sorry, I missed it. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

Uh, nope. Still don't see a point. Doesn't matter  

henapple

henapple

YukonRon

Darby_Crenshaw said:

i'm not debating you sardonicus. 

and i mentioned not knowing the full story behind the rationale for removing each statue.

i just find either extreme (villifying or worshipping) to be, well, an extreme, a simplification

So what will they call Lee circle once the statue is removed? He was positioned with his back to the north. 

Maybe be we can go to DC and remove Thomas Jefferson, who birthed his children into slavery? Take down the Washington monument as well. 

Where are the reparations for the native Americans? My people were bought over essentially as slaves to mine coal, live in company housing, and paid in company script. Maybe we could look into those things that offend me and have them removed too.

America's history is not all about chopping down a cherry tree. The very ink used to write our history was derived from the blood and tears of the oppressed. We are a better place now. 

This is land is shared by many, not to be owned by few. Statues and remnants that changed the history of the world, should not be removed. They should be there to create discussions like these for those that want to understand from where we came, long after we are gone, to solidify our direction going forward, epitomizing the land of the free and recognize this is the home of the brave, that sacrificed to keep this country the rest of the world looks to in crisis.

Remove everything that offends, let us start in DC.

Sardonicus

Interesting, albeit unsurprising responses.
For better or worse, the decision to remove NOLA's monuments to slavery and Jim Crow is, well . . . it's all over 'ceptin' the lawsuits.

That's how this democratic republic of ours works.  
It's a lot like a civil war: 
Sometimes you like the result.  And sometimes you have to get over it. 

  

bgebrent

Revisionist history is for idiots.  Our history is what it is.  To take down historical monuments because they're now PU is bs.  It negates the past and all that was right or wrong with it.  To keep and maintain those works of art one might argue helps perpetuate a dialogue about what was right or wrong about it!  Or stick your damned head in the sand and protect your children from the f'ing truth!  Study and learn from history, or a ISIS does, defile and destroy historical art.  Ridiculous.  And, I wish that 170,000 would've gone to folks in need, not pc ****!