The city of New Orleans is a place like no other. A unique amalgamation of different cultures, the town boasts a variety of architecture, food, music, drinks and dialects. It is simultaneously old and modern, rich and poor and never, ever dull. From sipping Sazeracs in the French Quarter to watching the Saints play, there is something for everyone in the Big Easy and that is largely due to the diversity of cultures to be found there.
Unfortunately, there is just one culture that is forbidden there: Southern culture.
Though the southern city embraces (nearly) all cultures and ideas, they have grown remarkably intolerant of those who wish to honor and remember the Southern heroes who fought in the- yes, I’ll say it- war of Northern aggression.
Recently, PolitiStick reported on the shameful cultural jihad waged against the Confederacy by New Orleans’ own city council.
Earlier this month, New Orleans’ city council voted to remove Confederate monuments to its heroes in order to cower to the political correctness bullies.
This includes a famous statue of Robert E. Lee that has stood for 131 years.
The council approved the removal of the city’s treasures with a 6-1 vote. The only holdout was Councilwoman Stacy Head who lamented, “I asked for a compromise multiple times. But that compromise was not given any chance.”
The council’s vote was supposed to force the removal of the Lee statue, a statue of Southern hero Pierre Gustave Touting Beauregard, a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and an obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.
After the vote on Thursday, Democrat Mayor Mitch Landrieu celebrated and claimed that it was time to “reckon with our past.”
“The time surely comes when (justice) must and will be heard,” Landrieu told the council before the vote. “Members of the council, that day is today. The Confederacy, you see, was on the wrong side of history and humanity.”
Though the city council acted shamefully in voting to disregard their city’s heritage, a lawsuit now threatens the removal of these historical landmarks.
Three historical preservation organizations and the New Orleans chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans have filed a suit to halt the removal of the statues, claiming that the land over which three of the statues reside are not owned by the city and that state and federal laws prohibit the removal of the statues.
“Regardless whether the Civil War era is regarded as a catastrophic mistake or a noble endeavor, it is undeniably a formative event in the history of Louisiana,” the suit stated. “It is the source of much of the cultural heritage” of the city and state, it added, “including countless novels, short stories, plays, monuments, statues, films, stories, songs, legends and other expressions of cultural identity.”
The city is relying upon a flimsy legal argument that gives the city the power to remove things considered a “nuisance.”
As the statues have stood for decades and even 100+ years in some cases, one can hardly make the claim that these statues have posed a “nuisance.”
Further, the lawsuit is rather clever as it also includes the Department of Transportation as the DOT has paid for street repair work which the lawsuit alleges have already damaged the monument. The suit also has halted the removal of the statues by claiming that they are historical parts of the nearby streetcar lines- a legal move that may not pan-out, but will force a more-lengthy review process and buy time for substantive legal discussions before the removal of the statues.
The 51-page suit pulls no legal punches as it also alleges that the Lee and Beauregard statues are on the National Register of Historic Places and that state laws also prohibit the removal of statues dedicated to military history and veterans.
It’s common to view complex legal maneuverings as hindrances to commonsense, but in this case, it seems clear that the complex legal nuances might just be the best chance for proud Southerners to hold onto their heritage and culture that remains constantly under siege by the politically correct crowd who speaks a great deal about the value of diversity, but remains remarkably intolerant to diversity of opinions.