Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday May 03 2017, @09:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the to-be-replaced-by-piles-of-beignets dept.

A 2015 New Orleans Times-Picayune article tells how New Orléans' Vieux Carré Commission recommended that four monuments be removed. Three of them honour

[...] Confederate generals P.G.T. Beauregard and Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy [...]

The other monument

[...] was erected in 1891 to honor the 16 members of the White League who died during an insurrection against the integrated Reconstructionist government in Louisiana, which was based in New Orleans at the time.

Various news outlets are reporting that the latter monument, an obelisk, has been dismantled at the behest of the city government, and that the others are also set to be dismantled.

coverage:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:11PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:11PM (#504304) Journal

    You're welcome. I came upon that speech a couple years ago when these debates started happening over confederate monuments. I think it's a fascinating first-hand account.

    The unfortunate thing, of course, is that stuff like Charles Adams' arguments were then taken too far by Southern apologists in the next generations, leading to the myth of the "Lost Cause" and the denial that slavery played a primary role in the causes of the Civil War (which of course it did).

    We've seen the pendulum swing back and forth. In the late 1800s, the North perceived themselves as "victors" and the other side as losers, and the few monuments erected then reflect that rhetoric, often celebrating. By around 1900, there was a lot more conciliatory rhetoric among veterans particularly, leading to joint memorials and meetings of veterans from both sides. But then the sons of the veterans came along and in the South wanted to remember their fathers as heroes -- so you get the inaccurate "Lost Cause" stuff: that's when a LOT of monuments went up around the 1920s and early 1930s. The pendulum had swung so far by 1958 that Congress voted to recognize Southern Civil War veterans officially as veterans under federal law, giving them and their survivors pension benefits. That was too late for any actual veterans, but many wives and children received federal veterans benefits (and apparently even last year, there's still at least one child [usnews.com] of a Southern Civil War veteran receiving benefits).

    But with the Civil Rights Movement, the pendulum started to swing back -- and rightly so. And now we're tearing down the statues.

    What I like about Adams' account is that it tries to explain the nuances and personal struggles many people undoubtedly had about the coming war. To me, that's a lot more interesting than the extremist positions people tend to have: either you brand the South summarily as evil pro-slavery traitors or you're a Southern apologist who denies that slavery was even a major factor in the war. Both sides in that discussion are severely flawed. History is more complex.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:16PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:16PM (#504305) Journal

    Oops -- sorry about that link. I misunderstood that the veteran in question there actually served in the Confederate army but then joined the Union army. Anyhow, I guess there aren't any more children of confederate veterans still receiving federal benefits, though there still were a few years back.