Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Good Times in the Big Easy

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 8, 2017

The other day in my post about the monument protests in New Orleans, I mentioned the “Confederate heritage folks, Three Percenter milita types, Oath Keepers, ‘Antifa’ anarcho-communists, and God only knows who else, all jostling and trying to provoke one another and get themselves on the teevee.” Now we can add to that listing (on the anti-monument side) an enormous street parade with a marching band, and on the pro-monument side, the white nationalist League of the South, Nazis and assorted klansmen. There was also some dude wearing replica Roman armor. I don’t know who he was repping.

What a nasty, nasty clown show. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after witnessing the last few days, Davis took a header off that monument on his own.

_____

More images at NOLA.com.

Advertisements

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Neil Hamilton said, on May 8, 2017 at 10:10 am

    Heritage? Not History? Publicity? Stupidity!

  2. OhioGuy said, on May 8, 2017 at 11:19 am

    I think Peter had it right: “I think that too many people think they’re right, and they’re not learning from either side,” he said. “If people really cared about this monument, they’d clean up the trash.”

    “All I can say is that one side left a lot more trash than the other,” Peter said slyly, but did not reveal which side had been the messier.

    What side do you think left the most trash? I suspect it may be the remove side, which I personally favor. Reminds me of the college town I live in. Several years ago there was a popular slogan seen on signs and bumper stickers around here that said, “Think Globally!” At the same time students were leaving piles of trash on city streets every weekend. I thought the slogan should have been changed to say, “Think Globally, Trash Locally!” 😉

    • Andy Hall said, on May 8, 2017 at 12:38 pm

      I don’t know. The “remove” side certainly seems to have had more people there, so that would factor in, as well.

      • OhioGuy said, on May 8, 2017 at 1:26 pm

        Yea, I guess we need to calculate trash per capita! 😉

  3. bob carey said, on May 8, 2017 at 11:45 am

    My dad had a saying “throw a net over the whole bunch of them”.

  4. M.D. Blough said, on May 8, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Of the three individuals on the contested monuments, I suspect that only P.G.T. Beauregard would have appreciated the hubbub.

  5. Jimmy Dick said, on May 8, 2017 at 6:05 pm

    It’s so interesting to see all the people saying that race had nothing to do with the Civil War while the most racist people in the United States line up to protest the removal of the statues. It’s also nice to see those same people claim the support of so many people while those that want the statues removed show up and outnumber those that are protesting the removal of the statues by a factor of at least 10 to 1.

    I also like how all of a sudden “new” evidence comes to light such as today with the lawsuit over the ownership of the land and statue. Really? All of a sudden? It’s been there all this time and no one saw it until just now? I suspect the hearing on Wednesday will be the usual dog and pony show from statue defenders. If that evidence is falsified, then it would be a good idea to charge people about that.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 8, 2017 at 6:50 pm

      They’re up in arms about the presence of the “Antifa” people and avowed Communists in New Orleans. After literally YEARS of shrieking that this or that person who disagreed with them was a damn dirty commie, they finally found some — blind pigs and acorns, you understand — but not a peep about the klansmen and Nazis who showed up waving Confederate flags. Same as it ever was.

      As to the “new” document, the judge denied issuing a temporary restraining order, but did agree to a hearing on it Wednesday. I doubt it will go far, given that the ownership of those monuments has been litigated ad nauseum, before the city finally cleared the legal pathway for their removal. I suspect that the first question the court will ask the plaintiffs will be along the lines of, “and why didn’t you introduce this document before?”

      The first rule of trial law is, “don’t dick around with the judge.”

      • Jimmy Dick said, on May 10, 2017 at 11:38 am

        The judge refused to grant the order today in court. Now the neos can appeal to the higher courts, but even their main guy said they were running out of time.

        • Andy Hall said, on May 10, 2017 at 12:42 pm

          They would have had to get over a high bar to begin with. This thing was litigated in multiple courts and the process of the took a year or more. Now they want to put the brakes on everything based on the photocopy of a 20-year-old document of unknown provenance that (I presume) was not entered into evidence previously. Even to get an injunction against the city until trial, they would have to show that this document it is so important that it would have a good likelihood of overturning the entire legal process that had gone before. It simply doesn’t do that. The time to have entered this document into evidence is long, long past.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: