Federal lawsuit filed to stop removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Just hours after a vote to remove Confederate monuments in New Orleans, a federal lawsuit sought to stop the action. The New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 on Thursday to take down the statues of Gens. Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard, and of former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis. An obelisk dedicated to the Battle of Liberty Place is also on the removal list. Thursday night, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana by three historic preservation societies and the local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The lawsuit says three of the monuments are key destinations of the New Orleans streetcar line, which is planned, funded, constructed and maintained by the defendants -- and are protected under National Registrar of Historic Places regulations. The monument marking the Battle of Liberty Place, which was moved to its current location using federal money, is also protected according to the lawsuit.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/us/new-orleans-federal-lawsuit-confederate-monuments/"]Source[/URL]

Beauregard and Davis I can understand but why Lee? He was simply not a bad man.

Why would people want to remove the statue of Lee? As far as I remember, he fought for the Confederacy not because of their ideals, but because he couldn't bring himself to fight against his own state. If anything, it's a monument to a great general.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49345993]Beauregard and Davis I can understand but why Lee? He was simply not a bad man.[/QUOTE] The "Lee was a good guy!" narrative is pretty much an urban legend. He wasn't. He is on record saying that he thought slavery was a bad thing and it was going to disappear over time within like 30 years, but his actions [i]really[/i] don't reflect that. He inherited slaves from GWP Custis, with Custis' will saying that they were to be freed after 5 years. Not only did he keep them solely for profit for those 5 years, but he also fought against the will in an attempt to keep them longer. Was his conviction against slavery actually so strong that he [i]hated it[/i] while sitting in court challenging a dead man's will for his right to keep his inherited slaves? There are multiple accounts of people saying that Lee was a cruel slave master - [URL="http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris"]the slaves he inherited from Custis have accounts where they say that he was significantly crueler than Custis was[/URL]. He had on of Custis' slaves lashed 50 times for attempting to run away after they weren't freed like they were told they would be, and stood by telling them to "lay it on good." And then Lee told the one lashing them to wash their backs in brine. But yeah, he's an outstanding individual who just liked states' rights. Not an abusive guy who wanted to uphold his image in the north by saying that he detested slavery, even though he partook in it and testimonies show he was a cruel slave-owner when he did own them.

Hell the only reason Lee joined the South was because his state did. If his state didn't we might be telling a very different story.

Because it's nothing more than a political stunt. He's saying they should go in a museum or something like that, but not only has no plans set up, but most likely no budget for it either. So these monuments will be removed, put into storage "until we can decide on a better place for them", and then never be touched again because "we don't have the funds", but they seem to have enough funds to move them.

Not to mention Lee told his wife in a letter the following: "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things." He thought that God would free the slaves over time and that humans shouldn't interrupt that process. He thought it was the race's discipline and spiritual punishment, and that they would be liberated by God somewhere down the line, but that it wasn't their responsibility to, you know, stop [i]beating the shit out of people and enslaving them because they were black[/i]. Nah. That's God's job, and those Abolitionists are just creating "angry feelings" in the slave. He was like "hey god'll do it, we're just the arbiters of their spiritual suffering, it's our duty under god to abuse them so that they can be liberated" [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=T553412;49346005]Why would people want to remove the statue of Lee? As far as I remember, he fought for the Confederacy not because of their ideals, but because he couldn't bring himself to fight against his own state. If anything, it's a monument to a great general.[/QUOTE] Because he's been whitewashed by history. There are plenty of primary documents establishing him as cruel, and he absolutely supported slavery. The letter that people use to "prove" that Lee was anti-slavery is absurdly racist. He thought slavery was a greater evil to the white man than to the black. Hell, [i]as a general he allowed his soldiers to take free black men from the north and return them to the south to be re-inducted into slavery[/i]. Truly a model general who opposed slavery and just did it for state's rights, right?

Devil's advocate, everyone, including most abolitionists, where insanely racist back then. In his famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln clearly states his belief that blacks are below and will never be equal to whites.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;49346190]Devil's advocate, everyone, including most abolitionists, where insanely racist back then. In his famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln clearly states his belief that blacks are below and will never be equal to whites.[/QUOTE] I'm not denying that everyone was more racist back then - I'm saying that Lee brutalized slaves that he inherited and willingly allowed his soldiers to take black free men from the north and [i]sell them back into slavery[/i] in the south. The idea that he was "anti-slavery but cared about states rights" is 100% revisionist nonsense. The idolization of Lee is nonsense - he was an average general (who lost more men and lost more battles than Grant did) who was fighting for the right to not free his slaves and to let god take as long as he wanted to free them because they deserve slavery. He is genuinely nobody special - the idolization of Lee as some "states' rights activist" who only joined the war because he was loyal to his state is absolute bullshit. He was a general in the United States military and he [i]abandoned his post and joined in open rebellion[/i]. The only reason the prevailing view of Lee as a great general who fought for states' rights is because of the Lost Cause interpretation of the Confederacy, which created a post-war cult of personality around Lee because they were so sad that they couldn't own slaves anymore. That's it.

Here's my simple opinion to all of this. Don't fucking destroy history because it doesn't make you feel comfortable. So south generals fought for a nation whose economy was slaves, doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it because of that. Also Sherman was an asshole too and he was Union. But history is history, and we gotta remember it no matter what, even if it is uncomfortable and sucks.

I never understood the point of removing historic landmarks. We shouldn't hide the parts of history we don't like anymore.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49346245]Here's my simple opinion to all of this. Don't fucking destroy history because it doesn't make you feel comfortable. So south generals fought for a nation whose economy was slaves, doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it because of that. Also Sherman was an asshole too and he was Union. But history is history, and we gotta remember it no matter what, even if it is uncomfortable and sucks.[/QUOTE] If we're removing the monuments to Confederate generals, we should also remove the monuments to Union generals, particularly Grant and Sherman. Sherman allowed the murder of Southern civilians and deprived people of their means to survival. Grant issued general order no. 11 which expelled Jews from his military districts and deprived them of their property.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49346265]I never understood the point of removing historic landmarks. We shouldn't hide the parts of history we don't like anymore.[/QUOTE] So maybe add on a plaque that's something like this? [t]http://i.imgur.com/QPwlmLr.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49346224]I'm not denying that everyone was more racist back then - I'm saying that Lee brutalized slaves that he inherited and willingly allowed his soldiers to take black free men from the north and [i]sell them back into slavery[/i] in the south. The idea that he was "anti-slavery but cared about states rights" is 100% revisionist nonsense. The idolization of Lee is nonsense - he was an average general (who lost more men and lost more battles than Grant did) who was fighting for the right to not free his slaves and to let god take as long as he wanted to free them because they deserve slavery. He is genuinely nobody special - the idolization of Lee as some "states' rights activist" who only joined the war because he was loyal to his state is absolute bullshit. He was a general in the United States military and he [i]abandoned his post and joined in open rebellion[/i]. The only reason the prevailing view of Lee as a great general who fought for states' rights is because of the Lost Cause interpretation of the Confederacy, which created a post-war cult of personality around Lee because they were so sad that they couldn't own slaves anymore. That's it.[/QUOTE] I've heard that before and I could've sworn I read something debunking it, but I wouldn't know where to look for it - maybe I'm mistaken. I knew he kept slaves but my understanding based on accounts I'd read was that he was the opposite of cruel to them. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=biodude94566;49346288]So maybe add on a plaque that's something like this? [t]http://i.imgur.com/QPwlmLr.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Wouldn't have a problem with that personally. I'm not sure how old these specific statues are but some of the ones people have protested are bronze statues dating to the late 1800s. If they're removed they should at least be put in a museum or something.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49346297]I've heard that before and I could've sworn I read something debunking it, but I wouldn't know where to look for it - maybe I'm mistaken. I knew he kept slaves but my understanding based on accounts I'd read was that he was the opposite of cruel to them. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] Wouldn't have a problem with that personally. I'm not sure how old these specific statues are but some of the ones people have protested are bronze statues dating to the late 1800s. If they're removed they should at least be put in a museum or something.[/QUOTE] I read the same thing and I was going to post it but I can't for the life of me find it.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49346297]I've heard that before and I could've sworn I read something debunking it, but I wouldn't know where to look for it - maybe I'm mistaken. I knew he kept slaves but my understanding based on accounts I'd read was that he was the opposite of cruel to them. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] Wouldn't have a problem with that personally. I'm not sure how old these specific statues are but some of the ones people have protested are bronze statues dating to the late 1800s. If they're removed they should at least be put in a museum or something.[/QUOTE] What's debated is whether or not Lee actually whipped one of his female slaves - there's no direct evidence about that. But the testimony of one of the slaves he inherited is solid evidence, it was supported by the testimony of others - it's fair enough historical evidence, far better than what Lee himself said he was. He left the military to take care of the slaves he inherited because he couldn't find a "kind, caring" slave-driver to run it for him. He did invest in the slaves for better clothes and food, but the fact that several of them attempted to run away and he ended up jailing them and selling some off to another plantation hints that maybe he wasn't the "kind" slave-driver he wanted to hire. He was better than most slave-owners in the deep south, no doubt, but the idea that he joined [i]solely because of states rights[/i] is largely considered incorrect and revisionist now. His loyalty was to the US military, which he had been a high-level member of for a very long time. There's plenty of evidence that shows him supporting taking freed black men from the north and selling them again, though. Pendulum's starting to swing back around - Lee wasn't a [i]bad guy[/i] in the historical context of the time, but he wasn't a [i]good guy[/i] who just joined the bad side because of some sense of loyalty to states' rights.

You can not and should not treat the past by today's standards.

[QUOTE=V12US;49346418]You can not and should not treat the past by today's standards.[/QUOTE] I literally said above that I know he wasn't acting out of context of the historical period - he fit in with his social caste and that level of racism was to be expected. What I'm arguing against is the whitewashing that [i]already happened[/i]. It is undeniable that he allowed attempted escaped slaves to be beat and sold, which contrasts with the Lost Cause narrative that he was a kind and caring slavemaster. The Lost Cause narrative is the one that is changing the narrative, not me. Lee was fairly average racist by the standards of the time - getting rid of the idea that he was a "kind and caring slavemaster" is how you have to start getting back to who he [i]actually was[/i].

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49346492]I literally said above that I know he wasn't acting out of context of the historical period - he fit in with his social caste and that level of racism was to be expected. What I'm arguing against is the whitewashing that [i]already happened[/i]. It is undeniable that he allowed attempted escaped slaves to be beat and sold, which contrasts with the Lost Cause narrative that he was a kind and caring slavemaster. The Lost Cause narrative is the one that is changing the narrative, not me. Lee was fairly average racist by the standards of the time - getting rid of the idea that he was a "kind and caring slavemaster" is how you have to start getting back to who he [i]actually was[/i].[/QUOTE] So the answer to whitewashing history is to whitewash more history?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49346038]The "Lee was a good guy!" narrative is pretty much an urban legend. He wasn't. He is on record saying that he thought slavery was a bad thing and it was going to disappear over time within like 30 years, but his actions [i]really[/i] don't reflect that. He inherited slaves from GWP Custis, with Custis' will saying that they were to be freed after 5 years. Not only did he keep them solely for profit for those 5 years, but he also fought against the will in an attempt to keep them longer. Was his conviction against slavery actually so strong that he [i]hated it[/i] while sitting in court challenging a dead man's will for his right to keep his inherited slaves?[/QUOTE] So like Washington, Jefferson and all of the founders.

It's history anyway, why remove history?

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49346745]It's history anyway, why remove history?[/QUOTE] Because it's offensive. And offensive is bad.

[QUOTE=biodude94566;49346288]So maybe add on a plaque that's something like this? [t]http://i.imgur.com/QPwlmLr.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] It was suggested by the councilwoman who voted against the removal, but they shot it down because politics.

[QUOTE=DuCT;49346759]Because it's offensive. And offensive is bad.[/QUOTE] Instead of censoring people should be using these things to educate.

Leave the statues and landmarks alone. This is our history these people are tying to erase.

I'm getting really sick of this kneejerk reaction crap. Just because you don't like the history of something doesn't mean you get to make it go away. Stop trying to erase history, and stop trying to erase a cultural identity. Confederate proponents today have nothing to do with racism. A lot of them are black southerners. It's an identity of the majority of the south. It's who we are.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49346038]The "Lee was a good guy!" narrative is pretty much an urban legend. He wasn't. He is on record saying that he thought slavery was a bad thing and it was going to disappear over time within like 30 years, but his actions [i]really[/i] don't reflect that. He inherited slaves from GWP Custis, with Custis' will saying that they were to be freed after 5 years. Not only did he keep them solely for profit for those 5 years, but he also fought against the will in an attempt to keep them longer. Was his conviction against slavery actually so strong that he [i]hated it[/i] while sitting in court challenging a dead man's will for his right to keep his inherited slaves? There are multiple accounts of people saying that Lee was a cruel slave master - [URL="http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris"]the slaves he inherited from Custis have accounts where they say that he was significantly crueler than Custis was[/URL]. He had on of Custis' slaves lashed 50 times for attempting to run away after they weren't freed like they were told they would be, and stood by telling them to "lay it on good." And then Lee told the one lashing them to wash their backs in brine. But yeah, he's an outstanding individual who just liked states' rights. Not an abusive guy who wanted to uphold his image in the north by saying that he detested slavery, even though he partook in it and testimonies show he was a cruel slave-owner when he did own them.[/QUOTE] This. And the additional fact that he was, moreover, guilty of willfully committing treason against the United States is reason enough to remove him. His actions as a commander against our country in a pointless war that was nothing but a futile effort by the South to hold on to a dying way of life and inhumane economic system that literally treated human beings like inferior pieces of property unnecessarily cost thousands and thousands of lives. He shouldn't be honored, Jefferson Davis shouldn't be honored, and it really is a shame that this is still an issue that hasn't been figured out by us 150 years after the fact. We should've pursued a policy like de-Nazification in Germany after World War II in the South after the war. That would probably have stopped a lot of this sympathetic bullshit from still being an issue. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49346781]Instead of censoring people should be using these things to educate.[/QUOTE] Educate how? Artifacts, archaeological sites, and such have practical educational value. Monuments gloriously preserving the memory of these inglorious figures do not. For the artists who actually made the monuments, sure, they have educational value about them and their creative achievements-- in which case, take them down and stick them in museums dedicated to the artists. But public statues and depictions were never intended for this purpose, and they never will be. Once again, it's supposed to be about glorifying the figures depicted, which these men are not worthy of, and that's how simple it is. If you want to learn about Robert E. Lee, go visit his mansion in Arlington, Virginia. If you want to educate people about him, send them there too. Same for P.T. Beauregard at his house in Louisiana, and so on and so forth. Spoken as someone who has actually been to Arlington House before, there's not a better place where you could learn about Lee-- no public monuments necessary. [editline]19 December 2015[/editline] This reminds me of people crying about statues glorifying the Soviet Union in the Ukraine being removed/vandalized. Once again, history is not being erased; it's still there, artifacts and sites (things with actual historical and educational value) where events occurred and figures lived are preserved, everyone still knows about it, future generations will continue to be educated about it-- it's just that it's no longer being displayed in a fashion that makes it seem like it was a great thing (because it wasn't a great thing; education's purpose is to make people understand that it wasn't a great thing by explaining to them the reasons and facts why).

Anyone who thinks "the time's person of the year can be a good person or bad person, its about their influence in the world!" But thinks Confederate statues should be removed is a hypocrite. The statues are for history's sake. Lee had a huge impact on the United States and that's a fact.

[QUOTE=Govna;49346876]And the additional fact that he was, moreover, guilty of willfully committing treason against the United States is reason enough to remove him.[/QUOTE] [I]This[/I] isn't even close to a good enough reason. I won't accept that as anything more than a patriotism appeal. Like it or not the majority of the CSA did not want and could not have possibly benefited from a war. Most of its army were volunteers trying to stop the Union advance simply because they were not very good guests, people who did not own slaves and, mostly, could never dream of owning slaves, did not care for the rich who practically owned them and certainly did not care for the rich's right to own people who were quite frequently only a little worse off than they were. Keep in mind that indentured servitude was very much alive and well and people of all colors were kept in bondage even if it wasn't legally slavery - they would have to sign a contract just to have somewhere to work, they'd be paid their wages, then charged their wages to live on the land, and be required to live on the land in order to work there. "He committed treason" is not, by itself, enough of a reason not to memorialize him. In general, Confederate soldiers fought for their towns and families in defense of a marauding occupying force. Those men should be memorialized. Whether the above strictly applies to Lee is up for debate but again I won't accept the treason argument alone. Even Confederate currency shows hope for a peaceful resolution, depicting scenes with captions like "capitol following the ratification of a treaty of peace between the CSA and USA" (roughly, I don't have my bill on hand as I'm out of town). Do note that I'm no "south will rise again" type, even though I honor my Confederate heritage and value my state's history. I'll never be caught saying the CSA should have "won" or been allowed to carry on. I just don't believe and will not be made to believe that every individual Confederate was some horrific nigger lynching wifebeating monster who just wanted to shoot those race traitors up north. Secession was a mistake, it was a violent, bloody, unnecessary mistake, but it was an event that molded our nation, with hundreds of thousands of people on both sides caught up in a pointless war. Men on both sides fought for powerful personal reasons and deserve to be memorialized for their sacrifice in defending their homes and families - not cast as treasonous traitors for being born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line. e; Here, I found a picture I uploaded previously. [t]http://i.imgur.com/PrSNOXH.jpg[/t] It's a little blurry but the caption reads "two years after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America."

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49346875]I'm getting really sick of this kneejerk reaction crap. Just because you don't like the history of something doesn't mean you get to make it go away. Stop trying to erase history, and stop trying to erase a cultural identity. Confederate proponents today have nothing to do with racism. A lot of them are black southerners. It's an identity of the majority of the south. It's who we are.[/QUOTE] I disagree with this on historical grounds, not this cultural identity bullshit which is absolutely stupid. The CSA and that general time-period was the south's worst. You should not be remembering that as a symbol of pride and culture at all.