Confederate Monuments In New Orleans

For people who oppose the removal of Confederate statues, history is said to be their biggest concern. Many believe that “Ultimately, removal of the monuments will, quite literally, erase an unsavory – but important – part of our nation’s history” (Brophy 2015). They fear that by removing these symbols, America would be disregarding a huge part of its past. Yet, history itself would not be destroyed, as the impact of the Civil War lives on; only the tokens of oppression would be removed.

Jefferson Davis was undoubtedly an important figure in the Confederacy. Davis was placed in charge of nation that had very few soldiers, little industrialization, and a lack of unity. Many historians blame the defeat of the South on Davis for being a “hot-tempered micromanager”. After the war, Davis was made into a scapegoat; a symbol of treason and racism. Who was Jefferson Davis as a person, solider, statesmen, and leader? A focus on Davis’ life, leadership skills, speeches, and actions before, during, and after the war may offer evidence to show who Jefferson Davis truly was. Also, it is crucial to take into account circumstances that affected Davis and his decision making before, during, and after the

No matter what a person’s race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is, everyone should enjoy equality. In the speech Speech Upon the Removal of Confederate Monuments by Mitch Landrieu, the Mayor of New Orleans, the removal of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans is discussed. The speech emphasises the fact that the Confederacy was wrong pertaining to their treatment of African Americans, and instead of teaching history, the Confederate monuments convey an image of inequality and violence. Mitch Landrieu argues for the deconstruction of historic Confederate monuments through his allusions to past historic events to contrast the modern shift of equality, so he can call the people to action to deconstruct the monuments. Through the

“‘A great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them.”’ George W. Bush spoke these words at the grand opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture (Nelson). He said this in hopes of keeping monuments reflecting slavery and segregation standing so people today could learn from mistakes in the past. Most monuments dealing with the topic of slavery are Confederate monuments, but they are causing controversy over their true meaning. Some people believe Confederate monuments are about southern pride, but many think they are symbols of racism (Ingraham). The debate over these monuments has caused violent protests like in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a Robert E. Lee statue was removed. Although Confederate monuments anger many people because of the history behind them, they provide lessons that can be taught to help end racism and make a better country. Confederate monuments and statues need to stay to preserve the history of the United States so it is not repeated, but the meaning to them should be altered to show segregation is immoral.

Alexander H. Stephen, in the ‘Cornerstone Speech’, firmly stated that, the Confederacy was basically on racial inequality and slavery. He clearly outlined the existing differences between the new nation and the American United States. Stephen made it clear that, the Confederacy of the cornerstone was not primarily of chattel slavery, but the black people subordination benefited the white people. Thus, he tied slavery to race. Confederacy was the origin of the era of apartheid in South Africa. Stephen made declarations that the new government was founded on the great truth , that the negro was not equal on the side of the white people and that, slavery which was to be a subordination to the white race which was superior, was a normal and a natural condition. Stephen criticized the claims of the northern that, African enslavement was a law violation nature and that it was a wrong principle, morally, politically and socially. He clearly put across that his new government had an idea which was exactly different from the northern claims. He argued that, it was a kind of insanity to believe that the Negro will be equal between the white and black people and also that, enslaving the blacks was wrong. He made predictions that, the Confederate constitution has settled all the questions relating to the African slavery which existed among the white people. Stephen’s arguments led to the outbreak of the civil war in 1865 (The Teaching AmericanHistory.org, 2017).

Thesis: As the debate continues on whether or not we should keep confederate monuments and symbols displayed publicly, it is important that we recognize both the benefits and downfalls of removing these symbols.

Confederate statues depict anti-abolitionists as heroes and very honorable men, therefore they should be removed. These men who are depicted as heroes fought for the institution of slavery. These statues not only glorify anti-abolitionists but they remind people of the strong racism of the time. Many people fight for the removal of these statues for the sole reason that they “serve as constant reminders of institutional racism, segregation and

When designing the monument, it is believed that Herman A, MacNeil had the intention of showing how strong those in the confederacy were, and that they would protect the confederacy as a whole during any issues that could arise. When looking at the statue, the first thing noticed is the semi- unclothed man with a shield and sword at the very front, and I feel that the designer placed him in that position to show that the confederacy at the time of the Civil War was extremely powerful. There is also a lady standing behind the man, presumably the mans wife, and she was placed there to

The removal of Confederate monuments has been a controversial topic over the past few years. Many want to tear them down, others want to keep them up and some want them to be moved to museums. Although controversial, many still do not know why exactly people want these statues to tear down or be kept up. After reading and analyzing both Michele Bogart’s and The Guardian’s view on Confederate statues, I would say that Michele Bogart’s “In Defense of ‘Racist’ Monuments” article was the most persuasive. Right off the bat, Michele Bogart starts off with how the rise of white nationalism is causing officials around the country to remove memorials of Confederate soldiers, military leaders, and symbols of “the Lost Cause”. Bogart clearly states that not all civic statues represent white supremacy or racism, but that they are “the culmination of complex social and artistic engagement at the community level” (Bogart). She further explains how eliminating these statues is not going to help solve the problem of racism in the United States. Her purpose in this essay is to persuade the reader that civic monuments should be kept up as pieces of art, not as “symbols of hate”.

A recent hot-button subject in the media has been what to do with Confederate monuments in the South. After the removal of a statue honoring Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederate Army considered by many to be a hero for the part he played in the American Civil War, a clear divide has formed over whether it was the right thing to do. Some agree with this choice, calling the statues remnants from a time of racial oppression in the United States. Others are outraged, considering it desecration of their proud history. Still others don't understand either side of the issue, and see it as a pointless feud. It is imperative to understand that to many people, these are more than just statues. Whether their impression is positive or negative, this issue goes beyond physical monuments.

The confederate era monuments in New Orleans have been a hot topic of debate. People on both sides feel passionately about whether these local historic landmarks should remain standing or be torn down because of the atrocities the men they honor committed well over one hundred years ago. Whether over racial or personal beliefs there are strong motives on either side. As of now the future of the cityscape lays in limbo. Will history prevail over emotion?

Hurricane Katrina struck the city of New Orleans, Louisiana on August 29th, 2005. The events that followed would leave the whole nation in shock until this day. One of the major topics of discussion after this disaster was whether or not the government's slow reaction time had anything to do with the fact that New Orleans is sixty-seven percent African American. As helicopters circled a wasteland that was once a major tourist attraction, the racism of the Deep South, thought to be extinct, proved it was only dormant. The same racism against African Americans that could be seen on Bourbon Street in the months prior to the hurricane reared its ugly head once more in Gretna, LA and was pointed out on live television by rapper Kanye West.

The Corner Stone address was a speech given on March 21st, 1861, by Alexander Stephens in the city of Savannah, Georgia. Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy at the time, describes the differences between the Confederacy and the United States. He delivered the speech extemporaneously, weeks before the Confederacy fired on the United States Army at Fort Sumter, thus starting the Civil War. Alexander Stephens clarifies that the enslavement of African Americans was the cornerstone of the Confederacy and explained the superior race had natural rights of slavery.

A time where the United States of America was split into two. This was called the Civil War. Theses three individuals and the symbol of the battle of the Confederacy are put on pedestals around the city. The people who put these statues up wanted to keep slavery and white supremacy over others. It just makes since that now in this day in age, we do not praise these individuals for wanted to keep slavery. New Orleans can move ahead with plans to remove prominent Confederate monuments from the city 's streets.

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America stated in the Savannah