Federal Judge Rules New Orleans Confederate Monuments Can Be Removed

I often hear the mantra that race relations “isn’t a zero sum game.”

Why would we believe that? It’s not like black majority rule means the destruction of White monuments and their replacement by black monuments in public spaces:

“New Orleans officials can begin the process of removing the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at Lee Circle and three other monuments at the center of a long-running, city-led effort, a federal appeals court ruled Monday (March 6).

In the ruling, the three-judge panel with the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the groups trying to block the removal of the monuments, Monumental Task Committee and the Louisiana Landmarks Society, failed to present a case that contained a legal argument that showed the monuments should stay up. The court wrote that the groups relied on two legal claims, “both of which wholly lack legal viability or support.”

Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s office said that a request for proposals will be issued within the next day to obtain bids for a company to remove the monuments, which will be stored in a city-owned warehouse until it’s determined what will happen to them. …”

What can we learn from New Orleans?

For the Heritage movement, the moral of the story is that someone always rules and in a multiracial democracy the outcome will be determined by demographics. Either White Southerners will rule New Orleans or blacks will rule New Orleans. There isn’t a third option.

If blacks rule New Orleans, then we can expect Confederate monuments to be removed, public spaces to honor black leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., blacks to be favored in city contracts and all the familiar wonders of the urban black experience to flourish like blight, corruption and violent crime. This truth was understood by every generation between the Battle of Liberty Place and the Baby Boomers.

Fortunately, it isn’t too late to save other Confederate monuments in Louisiana. The solution is to take advantage of Louisiana’s statewide White majority to pass legislation to protect Confederate monuments from removal by black majority local governments:

“The measure passed 24-7 and forbids changes to public markers that have stood for more than 20 years.

Sen. Gerald Allen, a Tuscaloosa Republican, sponsored the legislation and said it was intended to preserve history. He batted down the criticism of five black senators during more than two hours of contentious debate, telling them that the bill also leaves monuments important to African-Americans intact.

“This bill is here to help you,” Allen told Sen. Hank Sanders, noting that it would also apply to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which was made famous when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. walked over it during the Selma-to-Montgomery march in 1965. Sanders, a Selma Democrat, participated in the march.

“This bill in the name of protecting history is hurting history,” Sanders said. “I am deeply grieved by this bill.” …”

In Alabama, we have taken to heart the lesson that someone always rules, which is the reason why the Alabama Democratic Party has been reduced to a powerless black minority. To be perfectly honest, it is more important for Louisianans to relearn this lesson than to save the NOLA monuments. Just look at the logical conclusion of Rainbowism in South Africa. If we still believed we should rule in Louisiana, the monuments wouldn’t be coming down in the first place.

‘Civil Rights Icon’ Hank Sanders, who participated in the Selma-to-Montgomery March, was “deeply grieved” by the recent public monuments bill that passed the Alabama Senate. So what? Who cares if he cries ‘racism’? He doesn’t have his civil rights halo of moral authority anymore. We don’t care if he cries ‘racism’ because we don’t believe it is in our self-interest that Hank Sanders and black Democrats should rule. We understand that if they are allowed to rule in our state that they will govern with the interest of blacks alone in mind which will be harmful to our community.

We must always rule ourselves.

4 Comments

  1. Jefferson Davis in his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government stated:

    It is absolutely requisite, in order to a right understanding of
    the history of the country, to bear these truths clearly in mind.
    The phraseology of the period referred to will otherwise be essentially
    deceptive. The antithetical employment of such terms
    as freedom and slavery, or “anti-slavery” and “pro-slavery,” with
    reference to the principles and purposes of contending parties
    or rival sections, has had immense influence in misleading the
    opinions and sympathies of the world. The idea of freedom is
    captivating, that of slavery repellent to the moral sense of mankind
    in general. It is easy, therefore, to understand the effect
    of applying the one set of terms to one party, the other to another,
    in a contest which had no just application whatever to the
    essential merits of freedom or slavery. Southern statesmen may
    perhaps have been too indifferent to this consideration—in their
    ardent pursuit of principles, overlooking the effects of phrases.

    This is especially true with regard to that familiar but most
    fallacious expression, “the extension of slavery.” To the reader
    unfamiliar with the subject, or viewing it only on the surface,
    [pg 7]
    it would perhaps never occur that, as used in the great controversies
    respecting the Territories of the United States, it does
    not, never did, and never could, imply the addition of a single
    slave to the number already existing. The question was merely
    whether the slaveholder should be permitted to go, with his
    slaves, into territory (the common property of all) into which
    the non-slaveholder could go with his property of any sort.
    There was no proposal nor desire on the part of the Southern
    States to reopen the slave-trade, which they had been foremost
    in suppressing, or to add to the number of slaves. It was a
    question of the distribution, or dispersion, of the slaves, rather
    than of the “extension of slavery.” Removal is not extension.
    Indeed, if emancipation was the end to be desired, the dispersion
    of the ne gr oe s over a wider area among additional Territories,
    eventually to become States, and in climates unfavorable to slave-labor,
    instead of hindering, would have promoted this object by
    diminishing the difficulties in the way of ultimate emancipation.

  2. The Articles of Confederation created a quasi-Federal government which under Jefferson and his friends beliefs could outlaw slavery in unorganized Territory which in theory only the quasi-Federal govt had jurisdiction over, In 1787 the only unorganized territory was the Northwest Territory, Kentucky and Tennessee were counties of Virginia and North Carolina respectively and Alabama and Mississippi were counties of Georgia.

    The US Constitution carried over the same precedent but Madison confounded it by labeling African Slaves PERSONS. Now under the Common Law all PERSONS are in theory equal. Jefferson and Madison somehow held that Negroes could be both PERSONS and SLAVES. They also held that somehow Property Rights, extended to everything BUT Slavery. In their old age, both men regretted this, but by that time it was too late the precedent had been established. This was complicated by the fact that although it was clear after the Immigration Act of 1790 that Whites were to only be eligible for citizenship in the new states, the original 13 Colonies could still bestow citizenship upon Nonwhites as their governments predated the Immigration Act and the Constitution. This also included the Republic of Vermont, which had come into being in 1777.

    In 1789 Nine of the 13 States called Free Negroes STATE citizens, slowly this was revised. It took until 1835 for Negro STATE citizenship to be revoked in TN and NC, and 1838 in Penna. In 1842, Rhode Island suddenly declared Negroes citizens. At the time Dred Scott was decided, Negroes had full citizenship in Maine (part of Mass till 1820), Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Negroes had quasi citizenship in New York, provided they had enough money to own property.

    Judge Taney rightfully corrected Jefferson/Madison’s error. He understood that PERSONS couldn’t be PROPERTY only PROPERTY could be PROPERTY and as such if Slaves were Property then no State could outlaw it. The problem was Pre 14th Amendment, States could choose to ignore the Supreme Court. Thus Negroes went on being citizens in the above mentioned state and Taney had no enforcement power to stop it.

  3. Jefferson Davis didn’t explain this so I will. The Virginians of that Early Era ie 1775-1820, largely descended old Anglo-Norman Noble families who were wealthy planters stretching from the Piedmont into the Chesapeake (Tidewater) were a fairly LIBERAL bunch. Well-educated and humanistic in their outlook toward society, they were as a whole much more LIBERAL than the typical New Englander of that same era. The divide went this way. Your minority of Conservative Religious Virginians ie George Washington, Henry Lee, Winfield Scott, tended to be Federalists, but the majority of said planters lined up with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. ie the Jeffersonians.

    What changed in Virginia was the growth in power of the Scots-Irish in the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge/Trans-Allegheny and the Second Great Awakening, This new conservative Southern Man and woman that emerged from this, wasn’t wishy-washy like the Jeffersonians and didn’t get into philosophical disagreements about Laws and Rights. Their ideas were simple. God Family Property and GUNS. This group of people (today called BUBBAS REDNECKS ETC) was dominant in all of the Southern States, excluding Maryland where a sort of urbane Cavalier type like in 18th Century Virginia predominated. Maryland was also the only Southern State where the Second Great Awakening was a flop. Gen. Bradley T Johnson, a Marylander largely lamented the fact that Maryland never developed a strong political class like the rest of the South did. This was because the Scots Irish in Maryland never took over the wheels of power as they did in the rest of Dixie.

Comments are closed.