Petition To Bring Federal Charges Against NOLA Mayor Mitch Landreau

[Suburbazine]

Out of curiosity, what source material are you using to educate your kids about American history?

My university major was history (American history specifically, with a concentration on reconstruction era race relations). I find this notion that the Civil War wasn't about slavery to be disingenuous at best. Yes, there were other factors at play (as there are in any civil war), but slavery was indeed the overarching issue. One need only glance through newspapers, letters, journals, and a myriad of other primary sources from the antebellum era to see that the crux of the debate was slavery (and the spread of slavery as the Union expanded).


Mike

You argue that the crux of the war was over slavery, but you glibly ignore the fact that the Union "freed" all the slaves...

Except for the slaves on its side. Northern slave owners had zero issue keeping slaves after Lincoln's "emancipation" of the Southern slaves.

So no, slave ownership was not the crux of the war. It was a farce, at best.

 

[KDerekT83]

Signed, shared, and I even donated $10.00

 

[RaleighReloader]

No offense or anything but, all of what you have presented is all just opinions from so called schollars. And you do know what they say about opinions dont you? Everyone has one just like a bung hole, and the majority of them smell the same! Because the ones giving their opinon does not make them experts just because they are so called schollars, it does not make their opinions correct or right!

You're right that having an opinion doesn't make a person an expert. A lifetime of rigorous academic scholarship and publishing goes a long way towards establishing credibility, though.

One might consider their own contribution to the study of history before criticizing the work of others.

Mike

 

[RaleighReloader]

You sir are more educated than I am but though I am sure that slavery was a part of secession was not states rights also part of it. My ancestors did not own slaves, just simple folk in Mississippi. If you are fighting to maintain slavery, yet have no slaves, what would make you leave your wife, kids, and family behind?

Sure, states rights was a part of it ... but the overwhelming reason for the concern over states rights was to protect slavery from federal encroachment. Many of these arguments delved into the vagueries of the Constitution and where the lines were drawn between the federal and state governments, but at the end of the day most of the concern seemed to revolve around whether Southern states had the right to legalize slaveholding, and (more importantly) whether new states being admitted to the union could choose to be slaveholding states.

Mike

 

[iwhodat]

I signed and emailed to my gun toting buddies at work. Let's make this happen

 

[DaSouthernYankee]

I believe there is a provision in the Constitution for a form of "secession" from the United States but requires a three-quarter majority of states to dissolve or alter the union. I feel confident that the actual cause for the war was the idea (which I'm sure most of us share) that the Federal government is only permitted to do exactly what the Constitution says it is permitted to do, no more, no less. Since it said nothing about federal government regulating slavery the southern states, I'm sure, believed it was overstepping its bounds. The Fed obviously felt differently. And once the attack on Fort Sumter happened things pretty much went downhill from there.

Seems to me that the Civil War actually had very little to do with slavery, in my opinion. It just so happened to be the hot topic at the time. The primary underlying cause was state vs federal power. It's the same discussion that was going on long before the Civil War and one that still going on now. It's amazing that as much as things change, at the end of the day they still don't.

My 2 cents.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JADSCOOP]

Signed

 

[RaleighReloader]

Seems to me that the Civil War actually had very little to do with slavery, in my opinion. It just so happened to be the hot topic at the time. The primary underlying cause was state vs federal power.

Federalism vs nationalism flared up in various ways during the antebellum era. But I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the war was fought over federalist vs nationalist ideologies, and that slavery was just a minor part of that. That suggests that the tail was wagging the dog.

Slavery was indeed the central issue. States rights was just one legal framework in which to justify its continued existence.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself what defined northern states versus southern states, aside from simple geography. Why draw the line between Virginia and Pennsylvania instead of, for example, Virginia and North Carolina?

Mike

 

[PPBart]

You're right that having an opinion doesn't make a person an expert. A lifetime of rigorous academic scholarship and publishing goes a long way towards establishing credibility, though.

One might consider their own contribution to the study of history before criticizing the work of others.

Mike

Well said. I'm also a long-time history buff, mainly interested in the US Revolution and Civil War, but certainly not an expert. I also have ancestors who fought on both sides of the WBTS. I personally consider the existence of and the Souths determination to preserve and spread slavery to have been the primary cause for the war, but long ago accepted that for many that has become a question of faith more than fact and not worth debating. As for the statues, I think it is sad to throw away history, though I understand that some folks may be honestly offended by the sentiment they honor (and many more are just "stirring the pot"). The latter group I am sure will feel emboldened by their success in NOLA and will push for more such actions.

 

[RaleighReloader]

Well said. I'm also a long-time history buff, mainly interested in the US Revolution and Civil War, but certainly not an expert. I also have ancestors who fought on both sides of the WBTS. I personally consider the existence of and the Souths determination to preserve and spread slavery to have been the primary cause for the war, but long ago accepted that for many that has become a question of faith more than fact and not worth debating. As for the statues, I think it is sad to throw away history, though I understand that some folks may be honestly offended by the sentiment they honor (and many more are just "stirring the pot"). The latter group I am sure will feel emboldened by their success in NOLA and will push for more such actions.

I was initially opposed to the idea of removing the statues. I'm generally not a fan of erasing history (or moving it somewhere else just to make it "less bad"), and I do think that there's something important to be learned from the Lost Cause movement. As an aside, Catherine Bishir wrote an excellent article about late 19th century Civil War monument building, and she does an excellent job of articulating how deliberate the effort was to recast the Civil War (and the south's loss) as a noble cause. It is very much worth reading.

It's really interesting to me that people are screaming about Mitch Landrieu and his council's efforts to "rewrite history," when the very monuments we're talking about *were* efforts to rewrite history in the first place. Pot, meet kettle.

But here's the catch: the survival of American history does not hinge on the existence of a few statues. Monument building in general is simply a decision at a particular moment in time about how we want to memorialize our collective memory about something. It's more art than science; certainly mores than a history textbook, where there is (hopefully) an attempt to use sound historiographic methodologies, etc.

I think Landrieu handled this terribly, and I think it may cost him his political career. But in my opinion, that has less to do with what he did, and more to do with how he did it. He wouldn't get my vote, even though I do think that there was merit to taking down (and hopefully relocating, with dignity) statues that commemorated a pretty terrible period in America's history. African Americans have received short shrift in this country for a long, long time, and if taking down a few statues helps to build bridges, then fine. Put them somewhere where their full context can be more fully explored, such that we're not erasing history (and perhaps even making it more enriching).

It's also worth noting that America has its own history of monument destruction. I recall a well-publicized series of photographs from the mid 2000's, of the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down by American forces. One could just as easily make an argument that this was an attempt to erase history, and that Saddam was actually a good guy and just trying to maintain the noble sovereignty of his nation (or some other such fantastical justification). If we think of it not so much as history and more in the context of symbology, it makes perfect sense that statues would eventually be taken down. Change is a constant, and what we commemorated at one point in time isn't always worth commemorating at future points in time.

But, as you said, what these statues bump into gets more into articles of faith than any sort of sane and sober examination of history. Arguing that the Civil War wasn't about slavery borders on the absurd, but one can easily cloak that by saying that any historical assertion is simply an opinion (which is sort-of true, although there's a big difference between the opinion of a university educated historian with peer-reviewed publications, and that of a layperson that became a 10 minute Google expert on the topic). That's why we hear talk of state's rights and treaties and such; it obfuscates the very real horrors of of the Civil War and its human bondage, even though many of the people introducing these contorted arguments have no really meaningful understanding of these complexities. I guess at the heart of it, we all want to feel like we're from something noble and worthwhile, and in that sense the lost cause has a lot of appeal. That, and the chronic desire that many people seem to have to hate a particular group of people, whether they're a different skin color, or a different political persuasion, or whatever ... but that gets more into psychology; something, perhaps, for another day.

And, to keep this somewhat relevant to the second amendment ... I hope the fierce advocates of states rights are OK with states like New York and California enacting extremely strict gun control (especially in accord with the second amendment, which some originalists would argue only applied to the federal government). After all, if we're going to argue for less control at the federal level and more control at the state level, then we need to apply that equally across the board. Right?

Mike

 

[340six]

Singed

 

[John_]

This will not stop with these 4 monuments. What's next, the Civil War Museum next door to Lee Circle?

In an interview with some black NO reverend yesterday on WVUE or WDSU tv, the reverend commented in so many words there are other "items" in NO which need to go too. If you think it ends with these 4 monuments in NO, you live in Oz.

This was just round one. Give it a little time to marinate and congeal.

 

[noob]

This was found along the levy in Algiers..... Amazingly the dept of public works came by just a couple hours after.

 

[John_]

What does it read, noob? I can make out Mitch........

 

[Firearmfanatic]

What does it read, noob? I can make out Mitch........

"Mitch DA Bitch"

Why do you have to ask? You probably the one who done it!

 

[DaSouthernYankee]

Federalism vs nationalism flared up in various ways during the antebellum era. But I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the war was fought over federalist vs nationalist ideologies, and that slavery was just a minor part of that. That suggests that the tail was wagging the dog.

Slavery was indeed the central issue. States rights was just one legal framework in which to justify its continued existence.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself what defined northern states versus southern states, aside from simple geography. Why draw the line between Virginia and Pennsylvania instead of, for example, Virginia and North Carolina?

Mike

-I was not intending to make light of slave ownership. I suppose I worded my thoughts poorly. Maybe I should be sleeping at 2am and not surfing the forum . If I may ask, what do you mean by the tail wagging the dog? I don't see how that would necessarily be backwards. The constitution did not allow for the Fed to regulate or dictate slave ownership, at least not until the 13th amendment was past. Would they imply the war may not have started had there not been an assault on Fort Sumter? Or we're there other things going on (sanctions of some sort) against the slave states that may have provoked it? I ask because I seems like Lincoln had no intention of going to war over slavery, but retaliation for in unprovoked attack on the fort seems justified to me.

Also the obvious answer for the union vs confederate states is slave owner vs non slave owner states. The south had a large portion of its labor force at stake, as well as the face that, technically, slave owners owned those people (debates about owning people aside, at the time that's what it was). They were an investment of sorts (an expensive one) and I'm sure they saw it as the Fed taking away their property. Would I be wrong to assume that?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John_]

"Mitch DA Bitch"

Why do you have to ask? You probably the one who done it!

I haven't been to NO in a long time, maybe a year. I do miss cruisin the lakefront and City Park. Good on ya whomever did it

 

[Firearmfanatic]

I haven't been to NO in a long time, maybe a year. I do miss cruisin the lakefront and City Park. Good on ya whomever did it

I hear you, and was just messing with you! Good on who ever did it also. If I would have been closer, heck, I would have done it myself!

 

[noob]

Would be awesome if someone were to intergrate the "message" into a mural somewhere in the city

 

[RaleighReloader]

I was not intending to make light of slave ownership. I suppose I worded my thoughts poorly.

No, you worded your thoughts just fine. What started as a response to your post turned into a more general commentary, and I shouldn't have left the citation in (suggesting that I was responding directly to you). I'm sorry for that.

If I may ask, what do you mean by the tail wagging the dog? I don't see how that would necessarily be backwards. The constitution did not allow for the Fed to regulate or dictate slave ownership, at least not until the 13th amendment was past.

I guess a lot hinges on what how "We the people" is defined. I find it a bit ironic that a constitutional framework built on the idea of inherent, God-given rights (at least, after the Bill of Rights was passed) could exclude certain people based on skin color. But I suspect Thurgood Marshal would disagree with me on that; he wasn't shy about his belief that the Constitution was a pretty defective document.

In terms of the tail wagging the dog, I'm going back to the idea that the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery, but rather that it was about states rights, and that slavery was just a small part of that. That, in my opinion, is the tail wagging the dog. States rights, in my opinion, was just a way of defending slavery. In my mind, slavery was the dog and states rights was the tail

Would they imply the war may not have started had there not been an assault on Fort Sumter? Or we're there other things going on (sanctions of some sort) against the slave states that may have provoked it? I ask because I seems like Lincoln had no intention of going to war over slavery, but retaliation for in unprovoked attack on the fort seems justified to me.

I can't claim to know what Lincoln intended, but I do generally believe that it wasn't Lincoln's intention to go to war. I think it's a fascinating question, though, given the way the state militias operated in the 19th century.

I believe a lot of the ire came from the push for northern states to enforce the various fugitive slave acts. Slavery in the South was one thing; forcing people to the north to treat escaped slaves as chattel presented an entirely different legal challenge that wasn't going to be reconciled easily.

Also the obvious answer for the union vs confederate states is slave owner vs non slave owner states. The south had a large portion of its labor force at stake, as well as the face that, technically, slave owners owned those people (debates about owning people aside, at the time that's what it was). They were an investment of sorts (an expensive one) and I'm sure they saw it as the Fed taking away their property. Would I be wrong to assume that?

I believe your assumption is entirely correct, and that's why I used the example of the fugitive slave act above. It was one more way that allowing part of the country to have slavery was simply unworkable. And slaves were most definitely treated as investments; it's one of the odd ways that slave owners justified slavery as some sort of moral good (the logic went something like this: since slaves were expensive investments, slave owners had strong economic motives to provide for their well-being. Free blacks, on the other hand, had nobody to watch out for them. It's perverted logic, to say the least, but that was one of the moral justifications for slavery.)

Interestingly, the North stood to lose a lot from the fall of slavery as well. The ports of New York and Boston (and many others) made huge volumes of money by shipping raw materials that were brought in from the South; one reason why the rail corridors became so vital. The north was also not particularly excited about the prospect of a deluge of recently freed slaves moving into their states.

Mike