News Orleans Confederate Monuments Can Go, Rules Judge
News Orleans Confederate Monuments Can Go, Rules Judge
By Newsmax Wires, January 27, 2016
Monument to P.G.T. Beauregard (Wickimedia Commons)
New Orleans can move ahead with plans to remove prominent Confederate monuments from the city's streets, a fedweral judge ruled Tuesday, delivering a blow to preservationists and a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ruled against a collection of groups seeking to block the removal of four monuments, including a towering marble column and bronze statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, a landmark on the cityscape, reported The Associated Press.
In December, the City Council voted 6-1 to remove the monuments. The move is one of the boldest statements yet by an American city to sever ties with its Confederate past, and it has sparked strong emotions in this Deep South city where tensions over the Civil War still run deep.
Barbier, though, said his ruling was based on the law, not on passions.
"The Court is well aware of the emotion and passions that are involved in this case," Barbier wrote in his 62-page ruling. "The Court does not judge the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the actions taken by the Mayor or the City."
The city is enforcing an ordinance that allows the removal of monuments considered a public nuisance because they honor ideologies that foster racial, ethnic or religious supremacy and cause vandalism and civic unrest.
Barbier wrote that "the only issue before the Court is a legal one: Does the City's newly passed ordinance violate Plaintiffs' statutory or constitutional rights?"
Barbier knocked down each argument the plaintiffs made and said they "have failed to demonstrate that they will likely succeed on the merits of any of their claims."
The plaintiffs have advanced many arguments; among them, that their constitutional rights had been violated by the process for removal, the ordinance was unlawful and the monuments were protected by historic preservation laws.
The plaintiffs have vowed to pursue appeals and had asked Barbier to allow the monuments to stand until all appeals are exhausted. The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Franklin Hardy Jones III, did not return messages seeking comment.
The plaintiffs are the Louisiana Landmarks Society, the Foundation for Historical Louisiana, the Monumental Task Committee Inc. and the Beauregard Camp No. 130.
Besides the Lee monument, also slated for removal are a large equestrian statue of P.G.T. Beauregard, a Louisiana-born Confederate general; a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis; and an obelisk dedicated to a group of white supremacists who sought to topple a biracial Reconstruction government in New Orleans.
Hayne Rainey, the press secretary for Mayor Mitch Landrieu, welcomed the ruling. "We are pleased with the Court's sound ruling on this issue," he said in a statement.
He declined to outline the city's next steps, saying details would be announced "as they become available."
Once removed, he said, the city plans on storing the monuments in a warehouse until a plan is devised to place them in "a private park or museum site where the monuments can be put in a fuller context."
Tags
Who is online
469 visitors
This reminds me of a judicial decision in America of requiring the removal of a statue depicting the 10 Commandments from in front of a courthouse. It also makes me think of the virtual book burnings dictated by American school boards.
The adage written by Santanyana says in so many words that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. Fuck history. Fuck religion. America will become a nation of robots that will have been input with whitewashed porridge for brains. Welcome to mind control.
Denying history is an act of willful ignorance, and NO is epitomizing that now.
The American Civil War is one of the most written about events in world history. There is no chance that the individuals and events depicted in these statues will be forgotten.
No point in removing public art then...
I'd explain it to you but... nah.
But you are incapable of rational discourse. I understand.
Wonder when they're gonna take down all the statues/monuments to the blacks in N.O. since they also can incite violence??
When are they going to raze the Washington Monument? He was a slave owner.
This reminds me of a judicial decision in America of requiring the removal of a statue depicting the 10 Commandments from in front of a courthouse. It also makes me think of the virtual book burnings dictated by American school boards.
You might want to rethink that statement Buzz.
Why must I do so? The removal of the 10 Commandments monument was reported in the mainstream news, and although the removal of classic novels from school libraries was parodied in the movie Field of Dreams, you cannot deny that it has happened in schools in the USA. For example, D.H.Lawrence's works have surely been banned.
Never mind. I thought you might want to rethink the comparison of those instances with a monument to the president of a self-described racist nation, but I guess not.
That's part of your country's history. You can't hide the truth by deleting it.
They should never have taken down the statues of Stalin, either!
And this was VERY wrong:
Bob is in one of his refusal to explain himself stages because "no one listens to him" . Taking down S. Hussein's statue was a good action , almost as good as capturing him later in his hidey hole .
You're fixating on me, Petey. It's not healthy.
That made me chuckle out loud. You guys could go on tour. :o)
Who is going to clean off the pigeon crap from the removed monuments before storage ?
The depicted statue is of PGT Beauregard . Fortunately his likeness can be replace publicly by another
Beauregard :
You have found your level Petey.
Its not easy being green :
I love New Orleans. I probably travel there at least once a year because I love spending a couple days in the city. Walking around and seeing the monuments and statues and visiting the cemeteries is part of what makes New Orleans. I’ve never thought about those symbols in a negative context. I’ve only admired them for the beauty and the historical relevance they have to the City. The fact is, I’m white so I’ll never understand what these monuments mean or represent to a black person. I am saddened that our country doesn’t have the fortitude to see these memorials for the significance they hold. These shrines are a reminder of where we were, how far we’ve come and how much further we need to go. Soon there will be nothing our country can display for fear it will offend. I can only think that those who’ve helped hideaway the heritage of this country have only done us a disservice. Do they believe these decisions will somehow compensate for actions of the past? It won’t, just as these actions will not wipe away what has happened in this country by hiding its memorials.
PJ, why should a city that is majority black (61.2 %) (or any city, but let's leave it there for the moment) have monuments to the government and army that held them in bondage ?
So it is a reminder of the past. So what ? I live in Chicago. There have been hundreds of buildings and monuments from the past removed or torn down in Chicago over the years, and they weren't even controversial (they were just in the way of progress). There is nothing special about these monuments in New Orleans. The Confederate States of America was a white supremacist enterprise. It doesn't deserve to be commemorated.
John, I'm beginning to think that you have become a slave to PC, in a country that seems bound to PC itself to death.
Never mind. I thought you might want to rethink the comparison of those instances with a monument to the president of a self-described racist nation, but I guess not.
I responded to your identical comment above.
Should there be a monument to Heinrich Himmler in the middle of Tel Aviv ? Or somewhere in a Jewish section of Brooklyn ?
Heinrich Himmler was not a citizen of Israel or the USA, so how can you draw such a comparison? It would be like saying Alexander Bell invented the telephone in the USA rather than in Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Oh, in fact Americans DO say that, don't they.
Hmmm. Do you believe that there are statues of these individuals in New Orleans because they were citizens of the USA ?
I don't think so Buzz.
Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I thought Beauregard was resident in what I understand is part of America. Or are you now addressing the banning of D.H.Lawrence's novels, or the 10 Commandments? If so, then I can assune that you feel that all literature, or depictions, by and of non-Americans should be banned. That would include the bible.
By the way, John, this discussion is the best one I've had on NT in months. Your comments and tone are much appreciated by me.
Never mind. I can't argue with crankery.
The dictionary does not define the word "crankery". Just what do you mean?
You should know by now that John almost never answers questions ...
Yes, I DO know that, Petey. It happens usually when he is unable or unwilling to answer a question or respond to support his unsupportable comment.
I don't make stuff up fellas. This is from the print only version of the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language in the world.
ˈcrankery , n.
The characteristics of a ‘crank’; crack-brainedness, enthusiastic eccentricity.
Thank you for your unkind criticism of my comment, John. I guess I should have expected it from you, especially after I had paid you a compliment.
John, I respect your opinion and as I said in my post, I am white so I will never know what they represent to black people. To say I could understand or that it has the same meaning to me would be disingenuous. I don't say this to sound callous. Part of why there has been so much rife in the country is because there seems to be this shame to be white from our leaders thus the birth of political correctness. That is why Donald Trump has become so popular. He's not ashamed to be white. People are feeling marginalized and so they are embracing Trumps ignorant outrageous and racists comments. People are mad and he's giving them an outlet to express their anger. Part of the problem is you saying that these items have nothing but horrible significance. They may have that meaning to you but you don't get to decide what they mean to other people. It just doesn't work that way. When you read these words you won't have the luxury of hearing the inflection in my voice. I don't say them in anger or with malice but with calm and sadness.
I am not ashamed to be white either PJ.
Frankly, I am starting to get a little worried about you based on your comments on this thread.
They may have that meaning to you but you don't get to decide what they mean to other people. It just doesn't work that way. When you read these words you won't have the luxury of hearing the inflection in my voice. I don't say them in anger or with malice but with calm and sadness.
One of these statues is of Jefferson Davis, the president of the CSA. What connection does this man have to New Orleans other than that he was the head of the world's first openly white supremacist nation, and Louisiana was one of the member states. Why on earth would the present day citizens of New Orleans want to continue to commemorate that ?
I know you can't honestly answer that question.
Is it right to deny or cover up the actual history of your country? Perhaps the statue is a reminder that evil as well as good is part of history, and as Santanyana said.............
John - I wrote a lengthy response to your accusation that I couldn't honestly answer your question. I proof read it but decided not to post it because I already have honestly answered the question. In fact I have answered it twice but you aren't satisfied with my answer. I'm smart enough to know when someone's not listening and you're not listening. You've already concluded that you know the motivation behind my opinion and I don't think I would be able to convince you otherwise. So, with that I will bow out of this conversation.
pj - John does not answer questions.
and an obelisk dedicated to a group of white supremacists who sought to topple a biracial Reconstruction government in New Orleans.
Are you really arguing that this "monument" should be maintained on a New Orleans street corner?
That place is a liberal cesspool. I'm not at all surprised they would make such a foolish decision.
What is foolish about it ?
Get rid of them sooner rather than later. We have enough hatred in the form of Trump, Cruz, Paul and Hillary and Debbie Wasserman. The minorities are under enough pressure from job losses salary cuts Republicans trying to cut medical be it Medicaid or the Affordable care act.
When are they tearing down the Jefferson memorial?
These statutes are not simply a reminder of the city's history but rather a tribute to those who fought to maintain white supremacy through the oppression of an entire race. This is not like a statue of Stalin who, although a murderer, stopped Hitler. Nor is it like a crematorium left standing as a reminder of an abominable atrocity. It would be more akin to "heroic" statues of SS goons on public display throughout modern day Germany -- giving the impression that NAZI sentiment is alive and well. The New Orleans City Council was right to remove this garbage from public property the same way the Germans removed NAZI symbols. The statues can be placed in a museum dedicated to evil or they can throw them into Lake Pontchartrain for all I care.
1ofmany,
I have been to Germany and I have been to Austria. Germany was made to look at their history because they were the losers of the war and Hitler was their chancellor. We took down all the Nazi symbols, not the Germans. We left the camps there as a reminder and many Germans resented it. I have had many discussions with Germans over this and their views on this is quite varied
On the other hand, Austria was never made to look at their own atrocities, and so still have pride in what the reich stood for. When I was in Kitzbühel, Austria, the hotel that I was staying at, had a plaque up from WWII, stating that the owners were Arian. Furthermore, I met an old SS officer, with a gang of what I guess we would call Neo Nazis, boasting at dinner who they were, and no one even blinked an eye.
I think that the south had to come to terms with who and what they were. And taking down statues is dismantling history. The proper engraving on the statue, is all that is needed to give it perspective. And maybe people will learn from it.
I think that the south had to come to terms with who and what they were.
How can you say such a thing?
You rightly compare the attitudes in Germany and Austria... and then you assimilate the South to... Germany?? How can you not compare the South to Austria?
The Confederacy was founded on slavery and dedicated to the preservation of slavery. When have we seen a general recognition of that fact, and a general apology for it? Never.
We -- including you -- would be outraged by Germans extolling the "noble struggle" of the Nazi regime against "lesser races". But many of us remain silent while our fellow Americans wave the Confederate flag.
. . . I think that the south had to come to terms with who and what they were. And taking down statues is dismantling history. The proper engraving on the statue, is all that is needed to give it perspective. And maybe people will learn from it.
I disagree. Leaving these statues standing allows their supporters to escape reality rather than come to grips with it. I would only support keeping them standing upright on public space if they bear the inscription "racist pig" or are laid down as part of a trench style urinal and inscribed with the words "piss on me".
Personally, and only in my opinion, it's the choice of the people who live in New Orleans. If that is what they want, then so be it.
My parents, who traveled to Vienna, Austria when I was in college, told me of a giant Stalin statue that was forbidden to remove. The Austrians just covered it up with a series of fountains. You could still see it, but you had to wind your way through all the fountains to do so. I don't think the Austrians had a very positive point of view about Stalin...
I went to a "conservative" web site that has this story and looked at the comment section, to see what the objection is to the removal of the statues. Not unexpectedly, this is what we see -
"This is a bunch of bleeding heart liberal PC BS. They are trying to destroy our heritage and our history. Slavery was what was going on at that time. It started on the continent they came from so why is the U.S. being punished because it was part of that history and that time frame. Ship them all back where lincoln wanted to ship them in the first place and leave our history and heritage alone"
Suffice to say there are many comments like that, and on other sites the total would be into the thousands.
What is the point of babying and placating people like this ?
Please, any of you who defended these statues on this thread, please answer this for me.
This is what I think. The "purpose" of keeping the statues up, today, would be the same purpose they had when they were erected - to give justification to the "lost cause" interpretation of the Civil war era, to claim that state's rights was the reason for the war, and to indicate to posterity that the Confederacy had a just cause. That is what I think the purpose would be for those who want to keep them up.
Not for everyone would this be the purpose, but for many.
John –
First, I find the comment that you posted from a conservative blog disgusting and racists. I don't agree with the blogger or others that have posted similar comments.
I’m taking a deep breath right now because I’m trying to be respectful to you and to accept that you only see things in black and white; there is no grey and there is no compromise.
This is a complex issue. Are there going to be comments that are completely ignorant from individuals who revel in the cesspool of racism, yes. Have you ever heard of the saying “if you go looking for trouble, you’ll find it”. How about “ 9 times out of 10 if you’re looking it’s because you already know what you’re going to find”. You went to a site that you knew would have controversial comments because you were looking for something to support your view and position. That’s fine, I can accept that.
I went in search of some information also but I decided I wanted it presented from an unbiased position. Below is a link to an article that I found that is as recent as this month.
This is an article that gives the perspective from the Historian and Scholar. Needless to say, this will be an ongoing debate for a while.
Historians debate the value and place for Confederate monuments, memorials and other symbols.
First of all, the passage I quoted from a conservative web site is very mild for that sort of thing.
Now, as for what you linked, here is a passage
"Jane Turner Censer, a professor of history at George Mason University, made a similar argument, saying that the earliest attempts at memorializing Confederate soldiers -- undertaken largely by white women’s organizations -- sought to locate and identify their remains. Over time, the monuments became more and more celebratory, and "glorifying," boldly moving from the cemetery to public squares and other prominent areas: Davis on a horse, a Confederate soldier standing guard.
Some of the supporters argued that these efforts weren’t political, when they of course were, Censer said. "White Southerners showed their power by dominating the space with martial monuments.""
It is because the political intent behind these monuments is still ongoing in 2016 ( the promotion of the "lost cause" theory of the Civil War and the confederacy) that they should be removed at the choice of the residents of those locations. The New Orleans city council voted 6-1 to remove these statues.
One has to wonder just what the historical value of these statues is - The Jefferson Davis monument was erected almost 50 years after the civil war ended. It praises him as a selfless hero of "his people". Who are his people? and why did they honor him 50 years after the fact?
There is a larger picture here that some of you don't seem to get.
I guess you're right John. I'm missing the picture but by your argument we should tear down everything and erect nothing because it will eventually piss someone off. I'm pretty frocking pissed that my rights as a woman are constantly stepped on by men. I want every single statue or mention of honoring any man completed eradicated from our country so as it will no longer offend me and remind me there was a time when I was merely considered property to my husband. I want equal pay, I want equal opportunity, I want not to be viewed as a sex symbol.....wait, I'm okay with this last one (small grin). My point is that we can twist anything into being offensive. I agree some are far more offensive or legitimate than others. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this as I think they have historical importance and you do not but I do agree with you that they represent a time in our country that was horrible and shameful.
My point is that we can twist anything into being offensive.
Maybe so, but some are more obvious than others.
Who is the biggest historical misogynist you can think of? Would you like to pass by a statue honoring that man every day ?
Who is the biggest historical misogynist you can think of?
Off the top of my head I would have to say it would be Donald Trump. But this is a hypothetical and I don't consider this example as horrific as racism so I really couldn’t say how I would feel. Plus, it's just not comparable and I've never felt intimidated by a man with the exception of my father. I'm just someone whose been taught to not give power over to someone else.
... by your argument we should tear down everything and erect nothing because it will eventually piss someone off.
That is an unfair exaggeration, Pj. You don't have the right to presume what someone else thinks. No one does... which doesn't prevent the practice from being endemic on this site.
(The frown is for the site, not you... 
)
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some folks who would contribute to a fund for a statue of Cliven Bundy, "heroic resister against federal overreach!" Certainly for George Wallace, "courageous defender of state's rights"... If such "works of art" are placed on private property, then they express the opinion of the owner of that property. If they are placed on public ground they express the opinion of... ?
You don't have the right to presume what someone else thinks.
But I used the same argument with John. I said that you don't get to decide what something means or represents for everyone and he shot it down. So, you get to make a similar argument and it's legitimate because it favors the black position? My argument doesn't hold water because it doesn't favor the black position? That's called a double standard.
Exactly, PJ. It's a form of hypocrisy.
That is an unfair exaggeration, Pj. You don't have the right to presume what someone else thinks. No one does... which doesn't prevent the practice from being endemic on this site.
And yet, Bobby, you continue to open your yap time and time and time and time again with your "assumption" of what people SHOULD think.
Follow your own advice little one.
"...boldly moving from the cemetery to public squares and other prominent areas: Davis on a horse, a Confederate soldier standing guard.
Now THAT I don't agree with. There was a non-historical but present unacceptable political intent in doing that. In that case I would move it back to the cemetery.
I agree Buzz.
Your agreement, John, to one of my comments calls for my opening a bottle of champagne. Thank you.
"...boldly moving from the cemetery to public squares and other prominent areas: Davis on a horse, a Confederate soldier standing guard.
Well, there I agree with you Buzz. It was meant then as a slap in the face.
Well, said Jwc.
The Lost Cause is a set of beliefs common in the white American South in the late 19th and early 20th century. It also had considerable support in the Northern United States. The beliefs portray the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South , viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life, [1] while overlooking or downplaying the central role of slavery .
Yale Professor Roland Osterweis summarizes the content that pervaded "Lost Cause" writings:
The Lost Cause belief was founded upon several historically inaccurate elements. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve slavery , and the related claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel.
Historians, including Gaines Foster, generally agree that the Lost Cause narrative also "helped preserve white supremacy . Most scholars who have studied the white South's memory of the Civil War or the Old South conclude that both portrayed a past society in which whites were in charge and blacks faithful and subservient." [3] Supporters typically portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and its leadership as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry and honor, defeated by the Union armies through numerical and industrial force that overwhelmed the South's superior military skill and courage. Proponents of the Lost Cause movement also condemned the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War, claiming that it had been a deliberate attempt by Northern politicians and speculators to destroy the traditional Southern way of life. In recent decades Lost Cause themes have been widely promoted by the Neo-Confederate movement in books and op-eds, and especially in one of the movement's magazines, the Southern Partisan . The Lost Cause theme has been a major element in defining gender roles in the white South, in terms of honor, tradition, and family roles. [4]
The Lost Cause has been part of memorials and even religious attitudes. [5 ]
These statues were put up as a function of the Lost Cause ideology, that is plain as day.
Every member of the Confederacy was a traitor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves and been pigs in their own right but they didn't betray their country to fight a war to preserve white supremacy. The confederates should have been hanged, not revered in statues. Here's another alternative. Rather than remove the statutes, repeal the portion of law that makes defacing them a crime and let people bang them up with hammers.
Washington was a traitor to his King. The Confederate states had a right to secede. Slave owners are slave owners. It's just spin.
Every member of the Confederacy was a traitor
I agree. They rose up against the country and took up arms and I consider that treason. I'm not sure I agree with the hammer suggestion but I definitely can appreciate the passion that you bring against keeping these statues up.
Just like the American revolutionaries.
True, but the purpose of us leaving Europe was so we could form our own society. We didn't go looking for them with guns they came looking for us. So there is a bit of a difference but I understand your argument.
I see no difference. The colonies were supported by the UK whom they betrayed. I believe that betrayal was warranted, but the morality is equivalent.
Wonder if the Native Americans knew that pj.
No, the Native American's got royally screwed (no pun intended).
Just like the American revolutionaries.
The American revolutionaries won. If England had won, there would have been no statues commemorating a revolt against England. Nor should we be commemorating an insurrection against the United States. Traitors deserve contempt not praise.
Wrong. Victory does not imply moral superiority except in primitive cultures that celebrate trial by arms.
i.e. Might is Right.
Exactly.
Cerenkov - You CAN'T give me a thumbs down. I bet you've agreed with at least 97.5263% of what I posted on this thread leaving only 2.4737% that you may have disliked. You should automatically give me a pass on the measly 2.4737%!!! :op
I hope to God the 2% you disagree with him about includes the cause of the civil war. I would hate to have to downgrade my opinion of your comments PJ.
I just pulled the percentage out of thin air, it's not a true depiction. Don't worry, I'm always true to myself. I guess you could say I'm a little bit country and a little bit rock -n- roll. :0)
The confederates should have been hanged, not revered in statues.
Geez , its a little late to be second guessing Lincoln . He chose to let the Confed army disband with their weapons . He wanted to create a real peace which was not assured even after the southern troop lost the war .
Washington was a traitor to his King. The Confederate states had a right to secede. Slave owners are slave owners. It's just spin.
They are still traitors to the United States and deserve no statutes. And the Civil War was fought precisely because secession was not viewed as a right.
The civil war was fought because secession was disputed. In the American Revolution it was clear that secession was illegal.
You belive that rebellion is more evil than slavery?
The Civil War was fought because the south resented the north "meddling" in the issue of slavery, and because Abraham Lincoln believed (correctly) that secession was unconstitutional.
Lincoln wasn't correct. He won militarily. Also the Union practiced slavery shortly before the war. They had no moral superiority.
People like you are the reason the statues need to be torn down.
That level of ignorance should not be encouraged.
Yes. A knowledge of history is clearly dangerous to liberals.
I think we've beat this horse to death. Let's talk about something else...... Someone seed another article preferably one that is not about controversial memorials. :0(
The horse twitches every time we shoot it...
"I think we've beat this horse to death. Let's talk about something else...... Someone seed another article preferably one that is not about controversial memorials. :0("
I'm of two minds here - the first agreeing with your comment, PJ, the other being pleased to have posted an article that has drawn so many diverse comments - a genuine discussion, almost completely polite which is a credit to the members who have taken part, and a benefit to NT.
My consistent opinion was that of Santanyana - that those who ignore history may tend to repeat it, but on the other hand such history should be preserved in proper context.