Huddie Ledbetter in Shreveport, Louisiana

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT —  Just over a year ago I noted that the slippery slope was real with regard to the movement to remove historical monuments and place names once the Confederate monuments started falling at the whim of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.  Landrieu, you may recall, after a conversation with musician Wynton Marsalis whose great-uncle hated the Lee Monument, decided to take four monuments down.

About that same time, the radical group “Take ‘Em Down NOLA” released their target list for street names, buildings, monuments, hospitals, schools, etc., that are now offensive and must change which included New Orleans Touro Hospital and Tulane University.  Not content with the removal of four prominent monuments, the group is still protesting in NOLA.  Now they want the statue of New Orleans founder, Bienville, to come down and the iconic Andrew Jackson statue in Jackson Square which commemorates his victory at the 1812 Battle of New Orleans.

The lesson here is that these groups will never, ever be satisfied and there is no clear end to what they want to erase.  There’s no end plan.

Now, the craziness has spread all the way to California where in Arcata they are planning to take down a monument to President William McKinley for “directing the slaughter of Native peoples…”.  And it continues:

Other states are joining the movement. The city of Kalamazoo, Mich., said last month it would take down a park monument of a Native American in a headdress kneeling before a westward-facing pioneer. In Alcalde, N.M., and El Paso, statues of the conquistador Juan de Oñate have become subjects of renewed debate.

In Baltimore, a city councilman has vowed to replace a smashed Columbus monument with something that better reflects “current-day values.”

Where in the world does this end?

Let’s just take down all our monuments, statues, busts, everything, and start over.  Because surely we’ll all agree on what’s necessary, right?  We will all be of the same mind in who to honor in granite.

Here in Shreveport, Louisiana, we have a bronze statue of Captain Henry Miller Shreve on the riverfront; he is honored for breaking up the great log jam in the Red River and opening it back up to navigation by 1839.  But, Shreve never actually lived in Shreveport, so let’s pull him down!  Let’s put up a monument to someone who actually lived here!  (insert sarcasm).

Is that too trivial a reason to remove a monument?  Says who?  Who gets to make the rules?

In downtown Shreveport we have a bronze statue of musician Huddie Ledbetter standing on the curb in front of the library.  Why don’t we remove that one too, while we’re at it?  After all, he was imprisoned multiple times for violent offenses!  Pull him down!

I really don’t want this to happen – I love Leadbelly’s music.

The point is, at some point we have to return to reason and set aside our offended sensibilities.  What happened to all of those “Coexist” bumper stickers?  When did we stop believing that?  The message was that we need to learn to live together in peace.  I guess that’s not a priority any longer?

We can sift through all of our collective history as a nation and as people and there is no doubt we will find many things that offend us.  Our leaders, generals, presidents, all those we have memorialized in bronze, granite, acrylic, oil, marble, and in print, were not perfect people and sometimes they made poor choices in both their public and private lives but the point is that they brought us where we are today.  They were a product of their time and we can not judge them by today’s sensibilities.

By destroying these monuments or by hiding them, we learn nothing except that those who whine loudest win.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.  Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and on Twitter @paustin110.

By: Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — New Orleans Mayor Landrieu is publicizing his new book which is out March 20 and as the mayor blusters and pontificates all over the media, one can’t help but consider how he relished the monument drama as fuel for future book sales.

Last week he spoke to the press about his plans for the sites in New Orleans that previously held Confederate monuments.  It’s been about a year since Landrieu had four monuments removed: the monument at Liberty Place was taken in the dead of night. In the following days and weeks Landrieu also removed those of  Jefferson Davis, P.G.T. Beauregard, and Robert E. Lee, leaving blighted public areas and empty pedestals in their place.

During Mardi Gras, he placed a ring of porta-potties around Lee Circle.

The whole issue still makes me angry when I think about it.  My position has always been that these monuments represent history and to destroy public art does not change that history or make it disappear.  Landrieu never engaged the opposing side in any of his plans, an effort that certainly would have been better for the city and reduced tension.  But that wouldn’t have sold as many books.

At these sites, Mayor Landrieu plans to place an American flag where the Jefferson Davis monument stood.  As for Lee Circle, he’s deferring that to others to decide.  At the Beauregard site, the City Park Improvement Association will landscape and clean up the area and the pedestal will be removed.  Nothing will go where the Liberty Place monument was.

Landrieu says that those companies who didn’t make their equipment available to him to remove the statues were practicing “industrial racism” and he continues to insult the ancestors of a great number of southerners:

“Really what these monuments were, were a lie,” Landrieu told Cooper on “60 Minutes. “Robert E. Lee was used as an example to send a message to the rest of the country, and to all the people that lived here, that the Confederacy was a noble cause. And that’s just not true.”

It’s difficult to know what to say to people who refuse to see both sides of history.  And I’m a little embarrassed for him for being so blind and uninformed.

The entire monument removal fiasco was questionable on many levels and many questioned various legal aspects of the project, including who paid for the removal, why city workers were used to remove the monuments, and who was behind the foundation that funded part of the removal.

He said the monuments belong in museums but a year later they are still crated up in some city warehouse.

That Landrieu is kicking the can down the road with regard to the placement of the monuments themselves should surprise no one.  As Mike Bayham points out, Landrieu wants to go on his book tour as the guy who removed the monuments, “not rearranged them.”

But you can rest assured that whenever (or if ever) Davis, et al leave the city warehouse, Landrieu will be basking in the klieg lights of the media to criticize wherever they go, because that’s his racket and sole source of relevancy in the national media.

Instead of transferring the statues to an appropriate historic venue that would secure and maintain them, New Orleans is going to be treated to a new round of acrimonious bickering in shouting matches euphemistically labeled “listening sessions”, with the fringes of both sides being prominently featured by the media. Dragging things out benefits Landrieu’s national stature, though not the incoming New Orleans government, which should be focused on the quality of life matters that will be left festering on their doorstep.

While New Orleans is one of the most historic, vibrant, and beautiful cities in the South, it has suffered greatly under Landrieu’s tenure.  Crime has been out of control and the mayor has made little effort to do anything about that.  He is now a lame duck as he prepares to step aside for the new mayor elect, LaToya Cantrell, a Democrat who won the election with 60.4% of the vote.

One hopes that the incoming administration will deal with this issue with more finesse than Landrieu has done.

Here is the 60-Minutes transcript if you missed it.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport; follow her on Instagram at @patbecker25 and Twitter at paustin110.

Photo Credit: Forever Lee Circle FB page

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT —  We are deep in the throes of Mardi Gras season in Louisiana, that weeks-long bacchanalian festival with parades through the streets, brightly decorated and lit floats blaring deafening music, costumed float riders throwing beads, medallions, shoes, stuffed animals, coconuts, CDs, packages of Ramen noodles, even hot dogs.  You name it, someone on a float will be throwing it.

One thing some float riders will not be throwing this year is the Forever Lee Circle beads.  The medallion on the strand depicts Robert E. Lee standing atop his pedestal against a clear blue sky, and the words Forever Lee Circle.

You might recall my heavy “monument blogging” last year as New Orleans erupted into protests, marches, and stakeouts as the Mitch Landrieu administration swept through in the dark of night to remove Confederate monuments from the city.  Apparently, emotions are still running high.

From The Advocate:

The Krewe of Muses has taken a stand against Confederate-themed parade throws, banning its members from throwing Robert E. Lee beads — or any other items with a political message — in its upcoming parade.

The Krewe of Orpheus has also told members not to toss the Lee beads and its captain said any riders who bring them will be asked to remove them from the floats. And the Krewe of Endymion is also suggesting riders not bring the controversial throws.

According to a memo sent to the Muses’ float lieutenants, besides the throws being deemed inappropriate, the Lee-themed beads — which have garnered attention on social media — are also dangerous. The memo says the krewe is concerned people who would throw those beads could have them hurled back at them or the person throwing them could be harmed by angry paradegoers.

The Hayride, a popular Louisiana blog, calls bull on the political message warning:

Now, some people are using the city ordinance cited above by the Advocate in support of the idea that “political” beads are already illegal and thus restricting the Lee beads is simply following the law.  However, to my knowledge, the ordinance in question has never been enforced — and indeed political throws have been commonplace.  This stands to reason, because the ordinance appears plainly unconstitutional, and is thus a mere fig leaf for krewes’ efforts to regulate throws.

Meanwhile, the beads are showing up on eBay for up to $50 a strand!  And selling!

The owner of the Forever Lee Circle Facebook page issued this statement:

The making of this bead was and will be cathartic for so many in our community. Throwing this bead is nothing more than giving our iconic landmark a proper send off. Parade after parade it will serve as one big second line. A simple way to express our loss and remember all the good times we shared during Mardi Gras at Lee Circle. It’s about giving an outlet to those feeling a sense of loss. Having lost four of the cities most Iconic Historical Monuments, that had been part of the New Orleans landscape for over 100 years has been unimaginable for a lot of people. I have felt a lot of push back by people trying to attach their irrational fear, anxieties and hatred over the monuments to this bead and I’m not inclined to let others fears lay claim to my motives. I challenge anyone to find hate in my heart.

The group has joined the eBay fray and placed one of the beads up for auction with all proceeds going to their Lee Monument Association fund.

The major parades will be this coming weekend in New Orleans; we will be in suspense until then to see if the krewe members comply with the edicts of the krewe bosses or if they go rogue and throw their Robert E. Lees.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I’ve done a fair amount of blogging in this space about our Caddo Parish Confederate monument and the anti-monument hysteria that is sweeping the country, so if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to bring you up to date on our local monument controversy.

Ours is not like any other in the country and ours will be one for those who watch legal precedent. In most cases the monuments have been on public lands.  Our is not.  Ours is on privately owned land.

Our parish governing body, the Caddo Commission, voted last week, reaching a 7-5 decision, to remove the Caddo Confederate monument from in front of the courthouse after years of discussion and wrangling over the issue.

What makes our situation unique from other cities, at least as far as I know, is that while the United Daughters of the Confederacy owns the monument, and while the UDC also contends they own the 400 square foot parcel of land upon which the monument sits, there is no deed to that effect.  There is only a statement in the 1903 minutes book of the Police Jury in which they “give to the United Daughters of the Confederacy” use of the land and a large cash donation for the monument.

By the same token, there is also no deed on record for ownership of the land on which the courthouse sits.

The plot thickens.

The land was owned initially by the Caddo Indians but in 1835, President Andrew Jackson sent an agent to negotiate with the Caddo Indians for their land.  Larkin Edwards was the interpreter for the Caddo and was the husband of a Caddo Princess.  The eventual treaty included 645 acres of land reserved for Edwards but their other land was transferred to the United States.  According to local historian Eric Brock:

This included land from the line of the Arkansas Territory south along the Red River to Pascagoula Bayou, west along the Bayou to Wallace Lake, across the lake to Cypress Bayou, and up to the United States-Mexico border as defined by the two governments, then northward along that border to Arkansas again.  This area encompassed roughly the whole of modern Caddo Parish and a part of DeSoto [Parish] as well.

The provenance of the land has been in and out of litigation ever since. Supposedly, Larkin Edwards sold his land to the developers of the eventual city of Shreveport, specifically to a man named Angus McNeill; later McNeill transferred the title of his purchase to the Shreve Town Company but later said he had been tricked.  The matter was in the courts until basically everyone died and was never resolved.

Bottom line – no deed for Block 23 where the Caddo Parish courthouse now stands.

This will be a tangled web for the courts and certainly will be appealed no matter who wins the first round.

As soon as the Caddo Commission voted to remove the Confederate monument last week, the United Daughters of the Confederacy filed, within hours, for an injunction to stop them.  Also pending is a lawsuit by a third-party local citizen for a judgment by the courts to determine who owns the land. That case is expected to be dismissed as the citizen has no standing to file such an action.

It will all be fought in the federal courts and will go on for years.  The only winners here will be the lawyers.

The UDC is raising money for their legal defense fund and the Caddo taxpayer will be footing the bill for the Caddo Commission.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

(Photo credit: C.Pipes)

A friend of mine has a night -blooming cereus that she named Eudora, in honor of course of the famous Southern author Eudora Welty who had one in her own garden and was known for celebrating its buds with all night parties. When my friend’s cereus produced buds last week, rather than throw an all night party she sent a group text with a photo. Her message was filled with as much glee as Miss Eudora must have felt at her own blooms.  The flower finally burst into bloom last night and my friend stayed up all night long taking photos of it.  My text stream was filled with the evolution of a cereus this morning. By dawn the bloom was gone, closed up.

Miss Eudora has been much on my mind in past weeks as I picked up a volume of her collected stories recently. I have not read any of them in quite some time – since college, perhaps.  One exception would be “A Worn Path” which I use when I teach a creative writing class; other than that, the treasures of “The Wide Net” and “Clytie” have been long forgotten.  I spent several weeks this summer sitting outside under the shade of my magnolia rediscovering Miss Welty’s lovely southern prose and relishing the rich atmosphere she creates with her words.

There’s nothing more rewarding to me than picking up a book and rediscovering an old, favorite author.  While I read widely, both fiction and non-fiction, my preferences tend to Southern writers. Give me a Rick Bragg memoir, Flannery O’Connor, or even Faulkner and I am consumed with the words.

In the course of writing my soon-to-be-released biography of Cammie Henry I discovered the short stories of Ada Jack Carver, a bright light in the 1920s but who never produced anything of note after that.  Carver’s stories are rich in atmosphere and many have memorable characters such as old Baptiste in “Redbone” who initially seems to be celebrating the birth of a son by going into town to get drunk but there is more to the story…

What is it that makes Southern writers so distinctive?  Some critics contend that the Southern literary renaissance that began in the 1920s is still ongoing and I tend to agree with that.  When H. L. Mencken declared the south “The Land of the Bozart” and insisted that southern writers had produced nothing of substance, he fired up the pens and typewriters of every warm-blooded southerner who had a desire to prove him wrong.

The literature of the South is as unique and beautiful as its climate and its people.

I know that’s a matter of opinion — but it’s my opinion.

How long before this literature is targeted for criticism and banning as the Confederate monuments are?  Is that too much of a stretch?  Look at it this way: critics of the Confederate monuments say that the South lost the war, that the war was treasonous, that the Confederacy held slaves (as if the Union did not), and that the monuments were erected in the Jim Crow period; apparently their point with that last one is that these monuments are intended as some sort of subliminal white supremacy symbol.

This is all fallacious reasoning it seems to me.  These monuments were commissioned to honor the family that fought to protect their homes and their way of life.  And no, “way of life” is not code for slavery.  The way they lived was agrarian, it was slow and peaceful, it was with a work ethic and independent spirit.  Of course there were bad people who did bad things, but that has been the case throughout history.  Never has an entire culture been targeted because of that as is the case now.

One of our most beloved Southern writers was Harper Lee whose To Kill a Mockingbird is nothing if not a message on equality, tolerance, and dignity.  In Scout Finch we see the innocence of a child who has never been taught to see color in a person and who has never learned hatred or prejudice.  Those things are learned from adults and Atticus Finch’s lesson to his children was “put yourself in their skin and walk around in it.”  What are we teaching our kids now?

How many of us are living that way now?  How much of our hatred is learned and passed along to others?  How much of this monument mess and national anthem protest is just mob mentality?

And where does it end?  People ask that question often, but think about it.  For years overly sensitive lemmings have tried to ban books often citing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Animal Farm, and of course To Kill a Mockingbird among many, many others as offensive in one way or another.

How is that different than monuments?  These books are in public libraries just as monuments are in public places.  What’s the difference?

To me, both books and the monuments are works of art and should not be subject to censorship.  I disagreed when the Ten Commandments were removed from courthouses and schools but at least I understood the reasoning behind it (“separation of church and state”).  You could point me to a legal position that made that clear.

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying things because of course books don’t equate to monuments in literal sense but censorship is censorship wherever it lies.

If our society does not stop with this over sensitive offended culture we are perpetuating there is literally no end to it.  Everything is a target.  If you are traumatized by a monument how could you possibly read Delta Wedding?  When will the book burning start?

Miss Welty abhorred the Civil War: she had one parent from the North and one from the South and she saw what the war did to Mississippi where she grew up (long after the war, of course).  “Ravaged” was the word she used. But she also knew that there are two sides to everything; her parents taught her that.

As we consider the modern debate of monuments, we need to remember that there are two sides to everything and that the men we see carved in these granite and bronze monuments were men – they were not without flaw and they were not perfect but they were human, just like we are, and we can learn from them still and we can admire their dedication to home and family.  My fear is that we want to remove them now but in another decade or two we will regret this choice and it will be too late.

The night-blooming cereus blooms only one night of the year. Their blooms are fragile and temporary and draw people to it in admiration and awe, but then it is gone until next year. Welty called them “a naked, luminous, complicated flower,” and maybe that’s what our monuments are. Perhaps we all just need to spend more time looking at the beauty of a thing.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I read Tim Imholt’s post a few days ago on this blog with great interest.  I’ve done more than my fair share of “monument blogging” to the point that I’m wary of ever writing about another monument in my life, but it is a cause I think is important.

Tim makes a great point and one I appreciate; the media wants us to be freaked out about this.  They want controversy, they want protests, they want huge crowds of protesters with signs and firearms.  Drama sells.

I watched the “protests” in Dallas, too.  It made me sad to see the statue removed. I didn’t know the Robert E. Lee replica house was back there and that makes me feel a little better.

In Shreveport, I have been a little anxious as we have a “rally” coming up in a week or so.  There’s been a “call out” on social media for attendance (on both sides) at a rally around our Confederate monument.

Our case is a little different that those we are seeing nationwide.  Shreveport’s monument is on private land that just so happens to be in front of the courthouse.  The land was given to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1903 along with a $1,000 donation for the monument, and all this is recorded in the minute books of the governing body at the time, the Police Jury.  Our monument was commissioned in 1905 and dedicated in 1906.

So removing it is a bit more of a problem for opponents than in other cities.   The issue is now in the courts.

As far as the protests though, everyone saw what happened in New Orleans.  The problem there is that many locals didn’t want the monuments there removed.  Poll after poll proved that; of course a few did, but most did not.  The protests we saw on television and social media were driven by outside agitators.   One lady came from Oklahoma, dressed in Confederate garb and carrying a battle flag; as much as I admire her dedication and spirit, she was not from NOLA.  Another woman was from Florida and a man from Oklahoma.  These people brought protesters out in force because of their high-profile social media status and then comes the media.

What happens then is that perception is distorted.  In truth, on a local level, these monuments have stood with dignity and peace for over a hundred years in many cases. This sudden outrage is questionable.  The local people, as we saw in Dallas, aren’t outraged.  These monuments are part of their landscape and most people don’t even know what they are or who they represent, it’s just “a guy on a horse.”

A while back, an attorney in Shreveport appealed his convicted client’s case because the attorney said the monument interfered with the man’s right to a fair trial.  (He lost the appeal).

Shame on the media for perpetuating this nonsense. Let the locals decide what they want to do with their monuments and stop encouraging the frenzy.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – If you have not yet done so, please read DaTechGuy’s post on the Saturday protests in Boston.

I’m a college educated, professional woman and I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around all of this.  The irony is too great.

I’m trying to allow for the fact that I may have bias (my ancestors fought for the Confederacy), and certainly I don’t expect everyone to agree with my point of view.  Over a decade in blogging will teach you that right quick.  I support and even applaud your right to have a differing opinion and certainly support the right for everyone to be able to peacefully protest and express their opinion.

For me, from my perspective, I can’t help but tie these protests to New Orleans and the fact that Mitch Landrieu opened the door by moving the monuments there.

In Charlotte last week:

The group had gathered to protest plans to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, and others arrived to protest the racism.

And we know what happened: the protest turned violent and a man ran into the crowd with his car, killing one woman and injuring others.

This could have easily happened in New Orleans as well; protests there during the removal of the Jefferson Davis monument were terribly intense and many protesters on both sides had visible weapons.  What happened in Charlotte could happen anywhere.

What’s this all about, though?

Is it about statues?

Is it about Trump?  What does Trump have to do with monuments that have stood for over a hundred years?

Why do we all hate each other all of a sudden?  Can’t we differ without hating each other?

I’m not a tree-hugging liberal singing Kumbaya by any means. I’m a Reagan conservative and I support leaving these monuments where they stand because they are part of our history.  You can’t change history.

Here in Shreveport, Louisiana, our city has been embroiled in the Confederate monument controversy as well, although thankfully without these ugly protests.  A committee of local historians and officials was formed and they voted to keep the Confederate monument in its place on the courthouse grounds; they’ve also voted to erect flaking monuments to Civil Rights and Reconstruction and to erect signage with a lengthy denouncement of the monument, including this language:

“This monument, erected in 1905 is in memory of those who defended the cause of 1861 to 1865 and the cause itself. That cause was the attempt, beginning in December 1860, in South Carolina, by Louisiana and twelve other states unilaterally to withdraw from the United States of America and establish the Confederate States of America in order to preserve the institution of slavery of Africans and their descendants. …

…It was erected after the Civil War ended, after slavery and involuntary servitude had been ended by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”), after the abridgment of the right to vote “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude” had been prohibited by the 15th Amendment, and after the attempt at establishing state and local governments inclusive of former slaves and their descendants known as Reconstruction had failed due to their being disenfranchised by poll taxes and literacy tests, and by terror and threats of terror, including lynching, by whites. Thus, although they constituted 47 percent of Louisiana’s population in 1900, former slaves and their descendants had no say in whether or not or where the monument would be erected.”

Well.

There are some factual errors in that language and clearly some editorializing and bias, but the opposing side has the right (should the Caddo Commission approve this) to pay $10 a letter to put up this sign.

But why all this sudden fuss about monuments and statues?  Where does it end?

And why are we all of a sudden all fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists if we voted for Trump or if we support monuments?  THAT offends ME.

As DaTechGuy said in his post:

I was completely beside myself over this first of all Donald Trump won the majority of voters in 29 states. If a man can’t safely walk through Boston Common with that banner [“Make America Great Again”] no matter who is there that’s an incredible escalation as it is the dubbing of any person supporting Trump a fascist or a Nazi.

That’s just sad and frankly, wrong.

These protests happened all over the country during the weekend.  One in Dallas, “against white supremacy,” required police to chase protestors out of a Civil War cemetery which holds a Confederate monument:

Dallas police are using horses to try to break up a scuffle at a cemetery between people rallying against white supremacy and supporters of Confederate monuments.

Officers riding on horseback had waited as the confrontation became more intense, but they moved in to break it up around 9 p.m. It happened at Pioneer Park, a Civil War cemetery that houses the memorial to Confederate soldiers.

But wait – I thought the protesters wanted monuments out of courthouse squares and into museums or cemeteries!

The rules have changed?  Just that fast?

Where will it end?

Are we heading to another civil war?

It’s all too crazy for me.  As long as it was peaceful protests and working things out through legal channels, we can have that discussion. But when ANTIFA starts roping monuments, toppling them, burning them, without judgment or prosecution, things have gone off the rails.  Everyone does not get a trophy, you do not always get your way, and sometimes compromise is necessary.

We need a return to common sense and civility or our nation is finished.  We have to work out our differences peacefully. There is no other way.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Marshall Rooster Cogburn: …you can forget about your duty.
Eula Goodnight: Your own General Lee thought it was the most beautiful word in the English language.
Marshall Rooster Cogburn: What the devil do you know of General Lee?
Eula Goodnight: That he was a christian gentleman who was soundly whipped in the field by Yankees!

Rooster Cogburn 1975

As a general rule I’m opposed to playing games with history and reality. History is what it is and a lot of trouble happens when you try to fiddle with it for the sake of an agenda. That basis also is sufficient to oppose removing the confederate monuments in the south, much better, in my opinion to put up other monuments near and/or with them and explain how and why these folks thought what they thought, why they choose to fight and what the general condition of both American and world culture was so people understand how a nation’s decision to kick the slavery can down the road for 60 years led to a destructive Civil War. And given our current situation lessons on how to avoid such a war might be a pretty good idea.

But there is one more point that I think overrides all of these considerations in my mind and should be taken into account by all those self righteous virtue signaling folk trying to use this to raise their own political profile by playing the “triggered” card.

There were hundreds of thousands of Union causalities in the civil war. According to the US Parks service over 340,000 died (over 110K in battle). Furthermore another 275,000 were wounded meaning tens of thousands of US soldiers spent the rest of their lives maimed because of the various generals honored by those statues and the troops who served under them.

Yet not only didn’t those Union Soldiers begrudge the south honoring those who tried to kill them or succeeded in crippling them, but the elected representatives of the Union survivors not only felt no need to force the removal of said monuments but were perfectly happy to vote honors in those directions even though:

  1. The southern states never at any time held a congressional majority
  2. The Union vets and their children were a significant voting block that drove elections nationally for decades.
  3. After the Civil war no southerner occupied the White House until every single Civil War Vet from both sides was dead and said southerner (LBJ) only became president due to Kennedy’s assassination.

Why didn’t they care? I suspect it was because they understood that the south had lost the war and lost it big time.

Again turning to park service numbers out of a population of 5.5 non slaves the south suffered over 483,000 casualties, nearly a tenth of the entire population. Over 194,000 confederate soldiers came home wounded and when they did come home they found cities destroyed, their countryside practically picked clean by the armies that had slaughtered and maimed their military age population and found that their wealth had been drained faster than a sink unclogged by liquid plumber.

The Union vets and their children were wise enough to understand that no monument even if carved of the best marble or stone whether in a city square or on the side of a mountain could change the fact that the south in general and the southern armies in particular were thoroughly and utterly defeated.

To my mind if the children of those union soldiers, not to mention the men themselves who were targeted for death and destruction by the subjects of those figures depicted in those statues, weren’t offended enough by them to force their removal how much less of a claim do we have generations later to be so offended that those monuments must go?

Let em keep their rocks.

Update: A pretty good counter argument here


By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT  —  Let me open this week by apologizing for missing my post last week; a friend of mine died suddenly and the funeral was Monday. It all happened so quickly that I never even thought about my post here until Wednesday.  Note:  if you are a diabetic, please take care of yourself and do not ignore symptoms or skip medications. That disease is serious business.  Take care of yourself.

Meanwhile, here in Louisiana, local and state government continues to be the hot mess that it has been for decades and an issue for which Louisiana has become famous. I’ve documented pretty thoroughly the ineptitude that is local government in New Orleans: Mayor Mitch Landrieu continues to attempt to reinvent his legacy and image in the face of daily shootings and murders in the city while he was spending millions to remove four Confederate era monuments.

Let’s read between the lines of this summation of the situation:

The city says about $2.1 million was spent to remove the three Confederate monuments in May and the Battle of Liberty Place monument in April, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in security costs Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s administration had not anticipated.

My question: how could Landrieu have been so clueless as to not realize security would be needed? Did he really not think people would protest this?  Ineptitude at its finest.

Continue:

The city said $1.04 million of the monument-removal costs came from budgeted city funds, with $1.07 million coming from private donations through the Foundation for Louisiana, which is keeping the names of donors secret.

Secret?  Seriously?  I would love to know who is funding cultural genocide in New Orleans. FOIA, anyone? Be sure to read this post from The Hayride for more about Landrieu and his friends at Foundation for Louisiana.

Continue:

Deputy Mayor Ryan Berni said “racial extremists” forced the city to spend $710,000 on a safety and intelligence contractor named Trident Response Group. Invoices show that Trident, a Dallas-based company, provided advice developing operational plans with consultants charging up to $425 an hour.

Trident also provided two security advisers, listed on invoices only as “Bob” and “Gary,” at $275 and $250 per hour, respectively. About a half dozen other security analysts monitored threats on social media and other sources as known white supremacy groups and opposing Antifas encouraged online followers to amass in New Orleans, Berni said.

Again, this wasn’t anticipated? And “racial extremeists” forced the city to spend this money? This is incredible. I would suggest Landrieu would be more to blame than “racial extremeists.” As for Trident Security, they are self-described as “elite risk and threat solutions firm of Veterans and Special Ops to anticipate and solve problems for influential decision-makers.”

This is serious secret-agent stuff, isn’t it?! And all for what? What was accomplished?

Continue:

Mayor Mitch Landrieu had said there would be no city funds used the remove the Liberty Place monument and statues of Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis.

Berni emphasized no city funds were used on actual removal work, only logistics, security and storage. For example, the city was forced to spend about $52,000 building a shed for the monuments — and another $12,000 in security there — after they were moved to a storage yard because of attempts to vandalize them when they were left outside, Berni said.

Semantics. Word-play. Of course city funds were used in this demolition.  And again with this “forced” business – the city “was forced to spend…”. When did this shed get built because last time I saw photos of the monuments they were outside in a maintenance yard. Perhaps Landrieu should have left them where they were until he had a plan to place them someplace else – then he could have saved $52K  on “a shed.”

And by the way, there is still no plan for the monuments that anyone knows about.

Continue:

After WWL-TV reported earlier this week that the city spent $173,000 deploying 221 NOPD officers to the three Confederate leaders’ statues, the full amount paid for all four removals and the protests was released Friday. The total NOPD cost was nearly $220,000. Fire Department personnel were paid $20,000 and EMS employees made about $5,500 to be stationed at the monuments.

The Regional Transit Authority also spent about $7,500 to remove and reinstall overhead streetcar lines at Lee Circle to clear the way for the especially challenging removal of the Robert E. Lee statue.

Via. The Advocate

The graphic from The Advocate breaks down regular and overtime hours. All could have been avoided. Trident received $710K for this gig.  Would anyone say that Mitch Landrieu has been a good steward of the city’s money?  I don’t think so.

I feel certain at some point the Democrats are going to attempt to put Landrieu’s name out there for the next presidential election and it’s incumbent on all of us to know what you’re getting with that.

Meanwhile, New Orleans continues with daily shootings and murders, potholes go unfixed, the city’s infrastructure declines, tourism declines and problems amass.  The city is more racially divided than ever – a city that was once known for its acceptance of diversity and tolerance.

But at least there are four less pieces of public art. There’s that.  At least now nobody will have to drive by a statue of Robert E. Lee and feel the trauma of remembering that our country was once divided by a civil war over issues much more complex than just slavery. At least nobody will have to walk past a Jefferson Davis monument (even though they will still have to travel of Jefferson Davis Boulevard).

He has protected us from that trauma. Now if he could figure out how to protect us from the violence in the streets of New Orleans that would be something.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Now that Mitch Landrieu has removed four Confederate era monuments in New Orleans, supposedly we can expect two things as stated by the mayor himself:

  1. Crime will drop and the city will unify.
  2. New Orleans population will swell to pre-Katrina numbers.

Over the past few weeks Landrieu has used the city’s firefighters and police force to work, masked and in the dark of night, to remove these four landmarks which are now in an unsecured maintenance trash yard in NOLA.

Some reflections on this entire ordeal:

The citizens of New Orleans never got to vote on this. A city council vote of 6-1 sealed the fate of the monuments.

Various local media polls in New Orleans showed a majority supported leaving the monuments in place. The monument opponents, however, were more vocal.

Mitch Landrieu credits former NOLA resident Wynton Marsalis with the impetus to remove the monuments. Marsalis, who lives in New York, penned an OpEd for the Times-Picayune in December 2015 in which he stated:

“When one surveys the accomplishments of our local heroes across time from Iberville and Bienville, to Andrew Jackson, from Mahalia Jackson, to Anne Rice and Fats Domino, from Wendell Pierce, to John Besh and Jonathan Batiste, what did Robert E. Lee do to merit his distinguished position? He fought for the enslavement of a people against our national army fighting for their freedom; killed more Americans than any opposing general in history; made no attempt to defend or protect this city; and even more absurdly, he never even set foot in Louisiana.”

The statement about Lee never setting foot in New Orleans is patently false as Robert E. Lee was stationed at Jackson Barracks and was in the city numerous times over several years.

Mitch Landrieu has displayed an astounding lack of transparency on the removal process. Landrieu promised the courts that qualified contractors would be used in removal. This was a lie. Landrieu used city firefighters to remove the monuments and live feeds of the removal of each monument was evidence enough of their ineptness and inexperience with removal of priceless works of public art as the statues twirled perilously at the end of straps rigged around them supported by bubble wrap and while removal cranes burned rubber trying to get closer to their targets and leaked hydraulic fluid everywhere.

In his victory speech last week, Landrieu claimed that the monuments caused a great exodus from the city:

“I will say this for the people that are interested in the costs. The cultural, economic, and spiritual loss to the city for having those statues up that have run people out of the city. The great migration that sent some of our best and brightest to place across the country that we don’t have the benefit of has been incredible.” said Landrieu.

It’s as if it never crossed his mind that high crime, pot-hole ridden streets, corrupt government, failing schools, no jobs, and high taxes might be a contributing factor to the problems in New Orleans.

In truth, Hurricane Katrina caused the population exodus and the city’s population has been on a steady climb back to pre-Katrina numbers ever since.

As we reflect over the travesty of the Landrieu administration, one has to consider his motives in all of this. There have been rumors of a job offer from Al Sharpton for Landrieu, there have been rumors of the mayor having national political ambitions, and there have been rumors of motivations in Landrieu’s personal life for removal of these monuments.

Water under the bridge.

What is left in the wake of all this is a once beautiful city now more racially divided than ever. A city that came together in unity after Hurricane Katrina that is now ripped and torn at the seams. A city with a crime rate that makes it the most dangerous city in the country.

As I have documented this story on this blog through the past months, it has been with the purpose to acknowledge that this can happen in any city in any state in the country. As a people we must find a way to live together and to reconcile ourselves with our differing opinions and perspectives. States all across the South are struggling with this Civil War monument issue – some choosing to protect their monuments and some not. Some choose to add other monuments to appease the opponents (they call it ”balancing the story” but it is appeasement). Some choose to add “interpretive plaques” that retell the story in a more politically correct light.

The ignorance of our society, and the willingness to too many to avoid the study of history, is where this emanates from. Had Mitch Landrieu done one iota of research, for example, he would have known that Robert E. Lee had been in New Orleans. That was never the point.

Landrieu’s point was to “correct history,” as he told TIME magazine.  Now that’s a monumental ego for you.

As for the crime issue, the city has 76 murders this year so far, well above the rate last year.  And on Saturday night, for example, with all four monuments now gone, the shootings and violence continue. Two men were shot in downtown New Orleans Saturday night and another stabbed with a screwdriver.

Thank goodness the city is unified now.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.