Restricted Taking down Confederate monuments not an easy task

Poor Private

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
I own 10 acres of wooded land thats not being used. If they have an issue of where to put any of the statues I am more than willing to accept them. Of course they are going to have to use taxpayer funds to remove and transport them up here.
Which leads to my next question--- What is it going to cost the taxpayers to sanitize the plot where any marker or statue is located? It all involves public workers to remove, package(box), ship, store or build and buy a new plot, which will also include cleaning, then replacing with something new or just pave it over. Or are the intentions to destroy or melt down any statue or marker?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Please lets concentrate on the tangible difficulty of removing Confederate monuments or I will start channeling the opinions of Martians and Venusians from a cheap bus stop on it.
vlcsnap-2011-12-29-23h00m04s124.png

vlcsnap-2011-12-29-23h04m46s122.png
 

Lnwlf

2nd Lieutenant
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Location
SOUTHERN Indiana
I'm going to repeat this for those that may have missed it, or feel you are being singled out for "special attention" by the staff:

Third: Please understand that just because a post is moved to Campfire Chat does not mean it is "sent there to die". Removing posts or threads from the Main Page is a way to showcase what the mission of CivilWarTalk has always been; a place for the study of the American Civil War. The main page is the first impression for visitors interested in the ACW and as such it is very important to maintain the focal point of the site. If you want to keep up with ALL of the threads here, simply scroll down to the bottom of the Main Page and click "View Today's Discussions". That will take you to a page that is like the "old style" main page with all the threads and latest posts listed. This recent move really is no big deal or a "heavy handed" action.

Please remember, You in a general sense, are not the only one having posts or threads moved. Every member here falls under the same rules, rules set down by the site owner. Many members here have experienced the same treatment. Speaking for myself, I hope you all understand, but I am going to maintain the rules, regardless of who you are.

Posted as Moderator
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
I think what worries me is the loss of history. Take down the monuments, take down any mention of the Confederacy, instead of adding plaques for context or instead of erecting new monuments to black soldiers or women or to more Union leaders or abolitionists. It's possible to preserve the history, (adapting what JPK said), without necessarily supporting the history the monuments represent.

Not trying to put you on the spot, hanna, this is a general question about how we determine which history we lose and who makes that determination. New Orleans is sort of a special situation--it's not the County Courthouse in Belzoni, Mississippi with it's one Confederate monument. It's a city that is getting ready to celebrate its Tricentennial in 2018, 300 years of a fairly complicated history.

We were at the La. State history museum two weeks ago, looking at an exhibit of the uniforms of the various ethnic groups from New Orleans that fought with Jackson in the War of 1812. There were Choctaw uniforms, French creole uniforms, Creoles of color, American army, Baratarians--a somewhat diverse group.

The Lee Monument sits on a circle which was originally called 'Tivoli Circle" as it had a carousel on it and seems to have been surrounded by the German community. Actually, the name may still be Tivoli Circle, as the city ordinance dedicating the land for the monument indicated that the traffic circle would be Tivoli and the statue area would be Lee Place. The Jefferson Davis monument sits on the median of a street renamed for Jeff Davis at a time when the city was trying to impose more segregation and red lining.

Other street names were changed in the central city by the then mayor in the 1950s and various monuments have been moved around at different times--especially with street reconstruction. The Lee statue was planned to coincide with the start of disenfranchising the black population and overturning the rights earned during Reconstruction. During that period, the formerly free Creoles of Colour lost much of their status and societal privileges and were treated as any other former enslaved person. That's a big history that was pretty much lost.

When I went into the Cabildo, the museum of history for Louisiana, it struck me when I couldn't read some of the documents presented there--because they were in French--what a wealth of different "histories" there are in Louisiana. Is insisting that monuments to the Confederacy remain in place even as other names, places, streets, locations of monuments have changed an attempt not to lose history or to freeze that of one particular group in place?
 

Allie

Captain
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Not trying to put you on the spot, hanna, this is a general question about how we determine which history we lose and who makes that determination. New Orleans is sort of a special situation--it's not the County Courthouse in Belzoni, Mississippi with it's one Confederate monument. It's a city that is getting ready to celebrate its Tricentennial in 2018, 300 years of a fairly complicated history.

We were at the La. State history museum two weeks ago, looking at an exhibit of the uniforms of the various ethnic groups from New Orleans that fought with Jackson in the War of 1812. There were Choctaw uniforms, French creole uniforms, Creoles of color, American army, Baratarians--a somewhat diverse group.

The Lee Monument sits on a circle which was originally called 'Tivoli Circle" as it had a carousel on it and seems to have been surrounded by the German community. Actually, the name may still be Tivoli Circle, as the city ordinance dedicating the land for the monument indicated that the traffic circle would be Tivoli and the statue area would be Lee Place. The Jefferson Davis monument sits on the median of a street renamed for Jeff Davis at a time when the city was trying to impose more segregation and red lining.

Other street names were changed in the central city by the then mayor in the 1950s and various monuments have been moved around at different times--especially with street reconstruction. The Lee statue was planned to coincide with the start of disenfranchising the black population and overturning the rights earned during Reconstruction. During that period, the formerly free Creoles of Colour lost much of their status and societal privileges and were treated as any other former enslaved person. That's a big history that was pretty much lost.

When I went into the Cabildo, the museum of history for Louisiana, it struck me when I couldn't read some of the documents presented there--because they were in French--what a wealth of different "histories" there are in Louisiana. Is insisting that monuments to the Confederacy remain in place even as other names, places, streets, locations of monuments have changed an attempt not to lose history or to freeze that of one particular group in place?
It's possible to preserve the whole complicated ball of wax by adding layers. Just as the city itself has layers of different building styles, reflecting the different people who lived there.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
If the Lee statue were moved somewhere else, wouldn't the history be preserved just as the statue of Henry Clay now sits elsewhere?

But, shouldn't the majority of people who live in the city now be able to determine where these statues go, just as the majority once decided to ignore the particular French/Spanish/German/Irish/Domingue/Isleno/African history of the city and substitute a symbol of aristocratic English Virginia in its major intersection between upriver and downriver?
 
Last edited:

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
We don't lose history by moving or even taking down a monument. For example, since Henry Clay is mentioned above I have never in my life seen a monument to him, yet I know who he was and what he did. Is someone going to claim that without a monument to Henry Clay nobody would know anything about him?

Monuments tell us far more about the people who put them up than the people they memorialize, and if it's decided to remove a monument, it tells us about the people who remove it as well.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
We don't lose history by moving or even taking down a monument. For example, since Henry Clay is mentioned above I have never in my life seen a monument to him, yet I know who he was and what he did. Is someone going to claim that without a monument to Henry Clay nobody would know anything about him?

Monuments tell us far more about the people who put them up than the people they memorialize, and if it's decided to remove a monument, it tells us about the people who remove it as well.


Monuments can always be moved to a place dedicated for them.
 

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
But, shouldn't the majority of people who live in the city now be able to determine where these statues go, just as the majority once decided to ignore the particular French/Spanish/German/Irish/Domingue/Isleno/African history of the city and substitute a symbol of aristocratic English Virginia in its major intersection between upriver and downriver?

This is a double edged-sword. It just takes a swing of the population in a decade in a particular way to have a whole bunch of monuments that disagree with a particular agenda moved and/or destroyed. Or, even a "developer-friendly" local administration that cares less about the monuments.

Regardless, this particular monument is part of the National Registry of Historic Places and, thus, protected from a local "majority's" wishes... Need permission from the State & Federal government to take it down.
 

Allie

Captain
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
We don't lose history by moving or even taking down a monument. For example, since Henry Clay is mentioned above I have never in my life seen a monument to him, yet I know who he was and what he did. Is someone going to claim that without a monument to Henry Clay nobody would know anything about him?

Monuments tell us far more about the people who put them up than the people they memorialize, and if it's decided to remove a monument, it tells us about the people who remove it as well.
I've seen a monument to Henry Clay, but then I live here. Regardless your point is well taken. But what you do lose is art - replacing a landscape with monuments with a landscape with nothing.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
I've seen a monument to Henry Clay, but then I live here. Regardless your point is well taken. But what you do lose is art - replacing a landscape with monuments with a landscape with nothing.

Depending on the skill of the sculptor [or lack thereof], losing that art may actually be a positive. :wink:

Anyway, IMO what you lose is the message sent by those who placed the monument. In some cases that's a good thing, because the message being sent is not a good one. In other cases that's a bad thing. That's why I'm in favor of interpreting the monument instead of moving it or taking it down. That gives us an opportunity to learn about the people who placed the monument and their motivations, and possibly also a little about the time in which they lived all in addition to whatever you learn about the monument's subject.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
We don't lose history by moving or even taking down a monument. For example, since Henry Clay is mentioned above I have never in my life seen a monument to him, yet I know who he was and what he did. Is someone going to claim that without a monument to Henry Clay nobody would know anything about him?

Monuments tell us far more about the people who put them up than the people they memorialize, and if it's decided to remove a monument, it tells us about the people who remove it as well.

Here's the Henry Clay monument when it was still in the middle of Canal Street. And where he stays now, in Lafayette Square.
cdv, Henry Clay Statue, corner Canal and St. Charles, NOLA.jpg


kveus10046p.jpg
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
We don't lose history by moving or even taking down a monument. For example, since Henry Clay is mentioned above I have never in my life seen a monument to him, yet I know who he was and what he did. Is someone going to claim that without a monument to Henry Clay nobody would know anything about him?

Monuments tell us far more about the people who put them up than the people they memorialize, and if it's decided to remove a monument, it tells us about the people who remove it as well.

Here's a quote from The Daily Picayune, which would become The Times Picayune, about the dedication of the Lee Monument, installed by choice on Washington's Birthday:

"We cannot ignore the fact that the secession has been stigmatized as treason and that the purest and bravest men in the South have been denounced as guilty of shameful crime," The Daily Picayune wrote.

"By every appliance of literature and art, we must show to all coming ages that with us, at least, there dwells no sense of guilt."


http://www.nola.com/politics/index....story_new_orleans.html#incart_related_stories
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Here's a quote from The Daily Picayune, which would become The Times Picayune about the dedication of the Lee Monument, installed by choice on Washington's Birthday:

"We cannot ignore the fact that the secession has been stigmatized as treason and that the purest and bravest men in the South have been denounced as guilty of shameful crime," The Daily Picayune wrote.

"By every appliance of literature and art, we must show to all coming ages that with us, at least, there dwells no sense of guilt."


http://www.nola.com/politics/index....story_new_orleans.html#incart_related_stories

Monuments in general are political expressions.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Taking down Confederate monuments not an easy task
Posted: Jun 24, 2015 9:38 PM CST Updated: Jun 24, 2015 10:56 PM CST
Written by: Ryan Naquin, Reporter
Connect

8158502_G.jpg
NEW ORLEANS (WVUE) -
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's effort to take down confederate monuments is meeting opposition.

"With the state capitols and the Confederate flags coming down, I think that's the right thing to do, but I'm not so sure about extending that to other symbols of the Civil War," monument supporter Marianne Knight said.

More: http://www.fox8live.com/story/29402910/taking-down-confederate-monuments-not-an-easy-task

I will repeat a point made in the video clip in the link: we need to have variety of "interpretations" of the war, to use the phrase empoyed by the historian from UNO in the clip. As I have mentioned elsewhere, New Orleans is very significant in terms of the history of black enlistment and emancipation during the war, yet, there are no monuments in the city which speak to that experience. Thus, the current monument landscape presents an unblanced and unfair view of the history.

How this can be fixed, I don't know. It would take years and thousands of dollars to create a balanced commemorative landscape. And that might not be possible for a city with the many challenges that New Orleans has. Given that, some might argue that to create a balanced landscape, it's far easier to remove than to create.

All of this makes for interesting discussion, but it's hard for me to believe that all of these monuments will be removed. We'll see.

I'm curious, do you support destatuation? I'm curious as to exactly what this movement seeks to accomplish.

Just to make my position clear: I am not pro-"destatuation." I am pro-historical balance. If the monument landscape does not present a fair balanced view of the history, then it needs to be fixed. We should have a discussion about (a) whether the monument lanscape does or does not provide a fair and balanced view of the history; (b) what should done if it is felt that current monument do not provide a fair and balanced view of the history.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Top