Caddo Parish Confederate Monument Under Attack

The youthful soldier stands at rest, facing north; his face is "handsome and sensitive, with a slight trace of bewilderment in it."  Perhaps his confusion centers on the conflict swirling around him, on the animosity and anger, or maybe he is attempting to understand how 150-years later, we are still such a divided country.

At issue throughout the South is the manufactured outrage over decades old Confederate monuments.This brouhaha has been roiling New Orleans under the mayoral term of Mitch Landrieu; it has erupted in Memphis,  in Louisville, and let's not even begin the discussion about the battle flag.  Now it has come, once again, to Caddo Parish.

The Confederate monument that stands in front of the north side of the Caddo Parish Courthouse has been challenged  this time by Caddo Commission member Ken Epperson.  The NAACP called for removal of the monument in the past and the issue dissolved into limbo when it was (once again) determined that the 400 square foot parcel of land the monument stands on belongs to the Shreveport Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, given to them for use in perpetuity back in June, 1903. The Caddo Parish Police Jury (the forerunner of the Caddo Commission) donated not only the land but $1,000, or ten percent of the funds needed to pay for the monument, to the UDC.

Portion of 1903 minutes with regard to Confederate monument.

After the end of the Civil War, it fell to the women across the South to bury their fallen sons, brothers, and husbands and to commemorate those who were buried in unmarked graves in places unknown.  Across the South, women banded together in memorial associations, such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy (founded in 1894), for they had a common purpose. By the time our Caddo Parish monument came into consideration in 1903, the second phase of Civil War commemoration was underway and monument building was prevalent.

Despite what the NAACP might tell you, the original intent was not to perpetuate division and celebrate conflict. The primary purpose of these monuments constructed during this second phase (1883-1907) was to not only memorialize the fallen but to educate those in the future who may not have the same "emotional and personal ties" to the war.  The figures on these monuments had no overt political message or content -- something the NAACP and the uneducated liberals might be interested to know.

Because public citizens donated money for the construction of these memorials, it was then believed that these memorials should be a subject of civic pride "to be displayed in conspicuous places" like courthouses, public parks, and cemeteries.  Local historian Eric Brock wrote in the Forum Magazine in 2006:

For many [Confederate soldiers] in unmarked graves around America's battlefields, it is a symbolic tombstone, a sacred place that should forever stand and be respected. Those who forget their history, it has been said, are doomed to repeat it. Worse yet are those who deny history, for they doom civilization itself.

Attempting to erase, or sanitize, or revise, history by dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars to move hundreds of monuments into warehouses or dry museums is cowardice. It is to deny the sacrifices of men who sacrificed and fought for what they believed was their sacred honor -- their homes, families, and their state's rights.  The issues that divided the nation then divide us still only because there are those hate mongers and poverty pushers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who make their living and line their pockets off our being divided.

In July 2015, David French wrote:

Many thousands of the men who risked their lives and spilled blood to defeat the Confederacy would be appalled. Abraham Lincoln would see the malice toward all, the charity toward none. Ulysses S. Grant would be shocked at the notion, for example, that Pickett’s Charge represented “false valor,” and the great warrior-abolitionist, Joshua Chamberlain, would be disgusted at the thought of digging up Confederate bones to make a political statement. But why take any guidance from Union heroes when determining how to remember the past? After all, tweeters and Facebookers know so much more about right and wrong, about justice and injustice. After all, they’ve spilled their own online blood, and they have the hate-tweets to prove it. 

It would take a dim mind indeed to believe that once the Confederate monuments are all gone that our roads will smooth out, the paint will stop peeling off the walls in our crumbling schools, criminals will put down their guns, and drugs will only be used for healing.

Perhaps Ken Epperson and Lloyd Thompson, and their ilk, should take some art history classes, step back and admire the artistic masterpiece that Texas artist Frank Teich created for us.  Not only does

our monument have the young, bewildered soldier, but there are four busts of Confederate generals carved from Texas granite.  And most unusual, and not seen on other Confederate monuments, is the full sized figure of a woman, the Roman goddess of history, Clio, who is writing the names of the Confederate dead in a book of history.  She is lovely.

Our monument is one of the most beautiful Confederate monuments in existence. It was installed in 1906 with thousands of people from Shreveport and Caddo Parish in attendance. It was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2013, the application for which can be found here and from which I have consulted for some of this background.

As it stands now, discussion about the future of the monument has been scheduled for June 9 when it will move before committee chaired by Mario Chavez who said yesterday:

"We have removed it from the agenda tomorrow and it has moved into my long range planning committee. We will have open discussion on June 9th at 1300 in regards to this topic. You better believe I plan on keeping it exactly where it is."

If you feel so inclined, you are welcome to attend the meeting, fill out a speaker card, and have your three minutes to speak before the Commission on the matter.

Local attorney Henry Walker was at the meeting this week and he expressed his concerns that the monument "could possibly affect a trial because of its "implied subject matter."  What would that implication be, Mr. Walker?  What exactly is implied by this monument of Confederate generals, military men of respect and honor, men of value and integrity?  Men of courage.  Men who stood up for their families.  What is implied by a lone woman writing in a book of history?  What is implied by a non-confrontational, bewildered young man?  Mr. Walker told the Commission that the monument is just a bunch of concrete.

That might be the most revealing quote yet.  What exactly is threatening about a bunch of concrete, Mr. Walker?

Just a bunch of concrete?!  Now I'm bewildered.

In past attempts to remove the monument, the NAACP suggested replacing it with a monument for law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty -- even though we have one of those three blocks away. Now the suggestion is that we erect a monument to the USS Golet -- a submarine lost at sea during WWII which was financed with War Bonds, some of which were purchased in Caddo Parish and there was one Caddo resident aboard.

Liberal logic.

Here is the KTBS story of the meeting this week.  Here are the minutes of the Work Session this week.

It seems to me that in the end, preserving our past is the only way to protect our future.  Just as we can't wrap our children in bubble wrap and expect them to negotiate the travails of this world unscathed, we can not sanitize or revise history.  Sometimes that takes resolve and sometimes it is painful, but always it takes courage.  These times of division that we now find ourselves in, more so than ever before, will take courage and all of us pulling together to overcome the closed minded people who want to perpetuate division and discord among us for their own gain.

Hold strong.

Related:
Joseph Welsh Texada's Life Mattered Too

On Political Discourse in Social Media

I'm in a snarly mood this morning.  I've been in a discussion with friends recently about the state of political discourse and the intolerance of the left.  Nothing new there.

Let's talk about Facebook and social media in general for a moment.  New media, even - we can pull this out to the blogosphere, too.

I use my Facebook page not only as a way to keep up with old friends and stay in touch, but also to promote my blog.  Granted, blogging has been slowed by real life these past few weeks but that's another story.   But that's part of the objective of social media as I see it.  Sharing of ideas and spreading information.  Sharing news, articles, and videos you find interesting.

Yet there is a growing trend of intolerance from the left when your opinion doesn't jive with theirs.  That's not really new either, but the chatter seems to be more aggressive.  We've all seen the little e-cards photo that went around Facebook recently that said something like, "Wow!  Your political posting on Facebook has really changed my mind about who to vote for, said no person ever,"

Well, that was kind of funny really and not particularly mean-spirited.  It's the passive-aggressive snark and the even more outright hostile attacks that I find disheartening and that have my blood pressure up today.

A few weeks ago someone in my timeline posted a comment on their own wall (their right, of course!) that derided people for posting political opinion in Facebook.  "There should be a separate place for them to do that!" this person said.  Why?

Why shouldn't I be able to post political opinion and share articles if I want to?  Because it offends YOU?

If I'm offended or don't care to read a person's feed the simple response is to hide their posts or even "unfriend" them if it's that bad.  So why the passive-aggressive snark?

A friend of mine told me of a note she got from one of her Facebook friends which explained that she was unfriending her because of her political posting on Facebook.  That's fine, but why even announce that?   Why not take the high road and take whatever action you feel necessary without provoking a situation of resentment and/or hurt feelings?

Why all the attacks?  Why does the left feel the need to attack and diminish the right?  I'm sure it goes both ways but I've seen it more from the left lately.

We should be able to agree to disagree and stop the snark and hostility.  I get angry about the state of things.  I hate what Obama is doing to this country and I'm quite vociferous and opinionated about it but I won't attack you personally for your differing views.  I'll attack on policy and argument, but not personally.

In social media, I think it's perfectly fair to post and share your opinions.  In this country you are still, for the time being, allowed the right of free speech.

Bachmann Dissed by Fallon's Band Leader

Classy as ever, Jimmy Fallon's band, The Roots disgustingly dissed Michele Bachmann in her appearance on the show last night:

Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann emerged for an interview on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" Monday night to the song "Lyin' A** B*tch" by the band Fishbone, Spin Magazine reports. 

It's unlikely that Bachmann, who smiled and waved as the song was played, recognized what was happening - though the (wordless) music certainly sounded out of place.

The dis was intentional:

Prior to show airing, Questlove, the leader of Mr. Fallon’s Late Night band, The Roots, posted on Twitter, “aight late night walkon song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title.”

Band leader, Questlove, now says he didn't mean anything by it:

Roots' bandleader Ahmir 'Questlove' Thompson said on Tuesday that the song was a 'tongue-in-cheek and spur of the moment decision.

'The show was not aware of it and I feel bad if her feelings were hurt,' Thompson said. 'That was not my intention.'

Really?

Stay classy now. 

Here's the video.  What do you think?

Hoffa: "Let's take these son of bitches out...!"

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some rough rhetoric for the union faithful today while firing them up for Obama's speech.  Via RCP:

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

 What happened to the new civility?

Flashback to January when Martin Kaplan wrote on HuffPo:

If you're worried that violent video games may make kids prone to bad behavior; if you think that misogynic and homophobic rap lyrics are dangerous to society; if you believe that a nipple in a Superbowl halftime show is a threat to our moral fabric - then surely you should also fear that the way public and media figures have framed political participation with shooting gallery imagery is just as potentially lethal. 

I'll be expecting Kaplan's censure of Jimmy Hoffa just any time now.

Even Obama spoke of a "new civility in discourse" in January.  Did I miss the part in his speech today when he censured Hoffa for his lack of civility? 

Nope, I don't think he addressed that.  In fact, he said

"We're going to see if we've got some straight shooters in Congress. We're going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party."

"Straight shooters"?  Can we still say "shoot" in the new discourse?

Added:  Politico headline:  "Rick Perry Fires at Mitt Romney at S.C. Town Hall "
I guess Perry is a "straight shooter."

Tea Party Terrorists and Civil Discourse (Upated with Remarks from House Debate)

Politico has gone over the edge.  In the new era of "civility in discourse" Politico is now calling the Tea Party a terrorist group.

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.

They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.

And a little deeper in:

Terrorism is a tough term, but, unfortunately, it describes tea party tactics precisely. Their first step was to vow not to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Be sure to see Pirate's Cove for a complete fisking of the piece.

How quickly we forget.  It was January 2011 when Obama, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, said "only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

How are Obama's minions following his advice?

Harry Reid this morning accused Republicans of taking America "hostage":

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed today the Senate will act on his plan to raise the nation's debt limit, saying the economy should not be held hostage by recalcitrant House Republicans.

(He also complained:  "What's being done in the House is not a compromise," he said. "It is being jammed through."  He would know all about jamming legislation through, wouldn't he?)

The New York Daily News:

They will emerge victorious from this fight not because they are necessarily right or Americans support their cuts-only approach (they don't), but rather because they are willing to nihilistically sabotage the US economy.

I'm sorry, but who was it exactly that ignored the debt commission report?

Rep. John Larson (D-CT):

“Eighteen times the debt ceiling was raised for Ronald Reagan, eight times for George Bush, because they would never stand in this body to see a default on the full faith and credit of the United States”: Larson said. “We need not go through this ideological hostage situation. Why are we holding the American people hostage? Let's put America back to work. We’re a better nation; we’re a better body than that.”

According to Pelosi, the world must be saved from Republicans:

"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

Hey, at least the Republicans passed a budget.

Steny Hoyer:

"The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America."

Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT):

Welch charged, “This is the first time a party has used a debt ceiling vote to hold hostage the American economy.”

And on and on. They all got that "hostage" talking point memo, didn't they.

It goes both ways.  Republicans throw their fair share of heated rhetoric as well, but it seems to me there is enough blame to go around for this crisis and the Democrats are unwilling to accept any.  As I mentioned, they saw this coming months ago.  Obama walked away from his own debt commission report.  His position has always been his way or no way.  Compromise isn't a word he has used until lately.

As for the Tea Party, those Tea Party members are the only ones doing what they were sent to Washington to do.  They can't be bought off with earmarks or vague promises.  It isn't their fault that Obama helped create this crisis by ignoring the debt commission and continuing on his job killing, economy crushing, regulation heavy, massive spending policies.

Politico's piece is just fanning the flames and that is what is irresponsible, not the Tea Party.

Update:  Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VT) complaining on the House floor right now about the Boehner bill being "slapped together behind closed doors" in the dark of night.   He calls this all a "manufactured crisis."  By Obama, I might add.

Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC)  calls the bill the worst evah!  "We have NO time left in the debate on our side to debate whether we will pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that literally holds a gun to the economy of America!"

No terroristic language there.

Update 2:  Barney Frank:  "Speaker Boehner should take as his theme song, 'It's My Party and I'll Cry if I Want To.'"   He calls it "a flawed bill" brought by "a weakened Speaker."

Well, that was mature.

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD):  "The Republican majority should be embarrassed for the American people."  They are "reckless" she says.  The bill was "hurriedly drafted today just to please the far right elements of the Tea Party."  She says the Republican party is putting "our entire future" at risk "for this garbage."

Garbage in, garbage out.

Update 3:  Rep.  Gerald Connelly says the Republicans are "turning our Founding Fathers into deadbeat dads."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) echos the appeasing the "far right" theme.  Corporate jets!  Close tax loopholes!  Tax the rich!  Eliminate oil company subsidies!

Sheila Jackson Lee:  "This is the worst bill that any American could imagine in the history of this nation!"  Hyperbole.  "We actually have the authority...under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling."    She says the BBA is "not by majority" and will stop Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.  Hyperbole.  She urges people to call in and say "Stop the madness!"

Update 4:  I see kids in the chamber.  Such rhetoric for such young ears!

Update 5:  Rep. Marcy Kaptur suggests this bill is like pulling the IV tubes out of an ill patient and "shoving them down the elevator chute."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)  "This Congress is in chaos!"  True dat.  "We must stop this Republican Roulette and get back to a plan that is realistic."  She calls for a clean vote on the debt ceiling and if not then invoke the 14th Amendment.

Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) refers to it as the Republican Default Bill.  "The full faith and credit of the United States will be held hostage..."  There's that word again.  Some applause from the floor when he finishes speaking.

The children behind the podium are waving to the camera.

Update 6:  Rep David Scott (D-GA)  lamenting "drastic cuts" to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  About $1000 per person, he says.

Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)  "our nation's first ever default is at hand."

Rep.Markey says the Republicans "don't want compromise, they want capitulation."  He says this bill will change the Constitution "forEVER!" 

Nancy Pelosi says "the clock is ticking" - most overused phrase of the day.  "As we continue this debate today, one thing is very clear to me.  If our goal were to find deficit reduction in a balanced bipartisan way, we could certainly do that...we could find a path to serious deficit reduction."  "That is not the goal of the Republicans of the House of Representatives."   Now she's blathering about clean air standards and food safety.  Clean water.  "We can't do that for ourselves!"

Tax subsidies to big oil!  "You're going to pay more for your college loans so we can give tax breaks to people at the other end."   "This bill is going nowhere.  It is a total waste of time," she says.

The Speaker and the Republicans walked away from the table and the stock market dropped 483 points, she says.  I don't think you can totally blame the Republicans for that, Nancy.

Another Virtual High Five for Allen West

Oh Allen West!  What a card! 

Representative West has set the internet all aflame with his email smack down of DNC chair and fellow Representative Debbie Wasserman Scultz.  Rep. West took exception to comments by DWS on the House floor yesterday and I've just got to print that email in its entirety even though it's already everywhere:

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

Reaction to Rep. West's letter is as you would expect.  The left is not pleased and the right is offering virtual high-fives.

The best response comes from Doug Ross who says:

Hey, idiot: it's not "big oil and millionaires" that destroyed Medicare: it's you. You're an embarrassment, Debbie. And I can't wait until Allen West is House Speaker; I hope he puts your office in the basement with [Milton] and his red stapler.

Office Space!  Hilarious!

Debbie Wasserman Scultz might have overlooked the fact that she's dealing with a combat veteran and would do well to remember that Allen West knows how to deal with the likes of her.

Oh, I know about West's interrogation style in Iraq but I'm glad he's got the cojones to call it like it is.  If she's going to violate the decorum of the House floor and speak ill of a member not present then West is correct in correcting her.

Does it "lower the discourse"?  Maybe, but hey.  After listening to the left, and to Obama, the discourse be damned.  The left offers some of the lowest discourse there is. 

Consider this my own virtual high five to Allen West!

Another Example of the "New Civility" from the Left

In another example of "the new civility" from the left, Rolling Stone has a vitriolic profile of Michelle Bachmann in it's July 7 issue.  The woman who is now leading the pack in the latest Zogby poll of Republican contenders is described by Rolling Stone as

Michele Bachmann, when she turns her head toward the cameras and brandishes her pearls and her ageless, unblemished neckline and her perfect suburban orthodontics in an attempt to reassure the unbeliever of her non-threateningness, is one of the scariest sights in the entire American cultural tableau. She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo.

Nice, hunh?  There's more:

And Bachmann is exactly the right kind of completely batshit crazy. Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy — crazy in the sense that she's living completely inside her own mind, frenetically pacing the hallways of a vast sand castle she's built in there, unable to meaningfully communicate with the human beings on the other side of the moat, who are all presumed to be enemies.

You can read the rest if you wish.  As for me, I don't think I'll be taking any more lessons from the left on civility in political discourse.

Standing With Surber

Don Surber has a fine rant over at his place which has now been linked to by many in the blogosphere, but if you've missed it, go check it out.

On this whole idea of civil discourse, I think Surber makes a valid point.  It's important, however, not to lower ourselves to the lying, fabricating and malingering that has been the Rules for the Radical Left for some time now, led primarily, I would point out, by their president who encouraged his supporters to "get in their faces":



 But NOW they want "civil discourse."  Now they want to break years of Congressional tradition and sit in a bipartisan fashion at the State of the Union address.  Senator Mark Udall says the tradition promotes division:

Udall, and his letter's cosigners suggest that "partisan seating arrangements at State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States" and further that "the choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room -- while the other side sits -- is unbecoming of a serious institution."

Bovine Excrement.

It has been suggested that they only reason the Democrats want to change the seating arrangement is because they are now so outnumbered by the Republicans and they don't want it to look so obvious. 

This is not the time to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" in Congress.  Symbolic gesture or not, I frankly don't care if they "work together" or not as long as this "obamination" that is Obamacare gets repealed and replaced.  The big spending must end; the ridiculous stimulus plans and bail outs must end.  The irresponsible decision making must end.  Save your moral equivalence arguments; I'm not saying Bush did everything right either.  He certainly did not.

Civil discourse?  What brought that on, anyway?  Tucson?  That guy didn't bring a gun to that meeting because of political discourse!  He was NUTS.  Period.  What set him off?  Did Sarah Palin's PAC set him off?  I don't think so. 

No, polite civil discourse is fine and dandy but don't tell me to shut up when you've just stripped me of my rights, imposed crippling new taxes from every direction, tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, participated in inflammatory rhetoric yourself ("bring a gun to a knife fight!"), taken over private industry, frittered away my tax dollars on nonsense like turtle tunnels, insulted long standing American allies, jeopardized American national security, and insulted my own views. 

I'm with Surber.  Take your civil discourse and screw it.