“Tulane” Ave now on the list of name changes

[Ruski]

Devil's advocate (full discretion I'm totally against renaming) . All the people who get up in arms about ULL using University of Louisiana, making them sound like a flagship, blah blah blah. What if we reclaim University of Louisiana? Or even do it gradually, use University of Louisiana - Tulane for the first 50 years til all the grey hairs die out.

[DfromCT]

The Civil War happened. It's not going to disappear, no matter how much those Americans living in this current place and time want to erase it. It was about more than just the abolishment of slavery. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were fighting with as much conviction and sense of purpose as those fighting for the North. We cannot (and must not attempt) re-write history. The notion of changing names from those that supported the South in the Civil War is a passing fancy. I'm not saying we should celebrate those lives, but we cannot erase them, either. There were great men on both sides of the conflict among the states. Taking down their statues and stopping teachings of their accomplishments is plain and simply wrong. And this is coming from someone that believes in one race--the Human Race.

This is a moment in time, just as the first shots fired in the 1860's were. We need to teach our collective history in order to learn from it. Trying to erase it will only lead to future generations repeating the mistakes of the past. Who are we, 150 years after the fact, trying to rid ourselves of a past we're not proud of? We owe it to the future generations to pass along the lessons of past mistakes.

[tpstulane]

The Civil War happened. It's not going to disappear, no matter how much those Americans living in this current place and time want to erase it. It was about more than just the abolishment of slavery. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were fighting with as much conviction and sense of purpose as those fighting for the North. We cannot (and must not attempt) re-write history. The notion of changing names from those that supported the South in the Civil War is a passing fancy. I'm not saying we should celebrate those lives, but we cannot erase them, either. There were great men on both sides of the conflict among the states. Taking down their statues and stopping teachings of their accomplishments is plain and simply wrong. And this is coming from someone that believes in one race--the Human Race.

This is a moment in time, just as the first shots fired in the 1860's were. We need to teach our collective history in order to learn from it. Trying to erase it will only lead to future generations repeating the mistakes of the past. Who are we, 150 years after the fact, trying to rid ourselves of a past we're not proud of? We owe it to the future generations to pass along the lessons of past mistakes.

Not only that the North certainly invaded the South to start the war. Union troops crossed the Mason-Dixon line with its troops. Union troops early on attacked New Orleans to deny the Mississippi to Southern shipping. Before long, Grant came ravaging down the Tennessee in 1862, attacking Mississippi and Alabama and curling back on Memphis. Ditto in 1863 as Union forces embarked from Chattanooga on their effort to bisect the Southland.

One final, terrible invasion of Virginia later, and it was all over. Many of the highest profile battles of the War were fought in the South (Virginia, especially), from Fredericksburg, to Chancellorsville, to Bull Run 1&2, to the Vicksburg and Atlanta Campaigns…the list goes on. Outside of those battles, most of the rest were fought in what you’d call “border states” like Maryland and Kentucky. The only major battle fought unambiguously in the North, at least that I can think of, was Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania. So from that perspective, virtually the entire war was fought in the context of an invasion of the South.
South just wanted to be left alone, but the North had other ideas.

[RollWaveRoll]

The Civil War happened. It's not going to disappear, no matter how much those Americans living in this current place and time want to erase it. It was about more than just the abolishment of slavery. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were fighting with as much conviction and sense of purpose as those fighting for the North. We cannot (and must not attempt) re-write history. The notion of changing names from those that supported the South in the Civil War is a passing fancy. I'm not saying we should celebrate those lives, but we cannot erase them, either. There were great men on both sides of the conflict among the states. Taking down their statues and stopping teachings of their accomplishments is plain and simply wrong. And this is coming from someone that believes in one race--the Human Race.

This is a moment in time, just as the first shots fired in the 1860's were. We need to teach our collective history in order to learn from it. Trying to erase it will only lead to future generations repeating the mistakes of the past. Who are we, 150 years after the fact, trying to rid ourselves of a past we're not proud of? We owe it to the future generations to pass along the lessons of past mistakes.

Not only that the North certainly invaded the South to start the war. Union troops crossed the Mason-Dixon line with its troops. Union troops early on attacked New Orleans to deny the Mississippi to Southern shipping. Before long, Grant came ravaging down the Tennessee in 1862, attacking Mississippi and Alabama and curling back on Memphis. Ditto in 1863 as Union forces embarked from Chattanooga on their effort to bisect the Southland.

One final, terrible invasion of Virginia later, and it was all over. Many of the highest profile battles of the War were fought in the South (Virginia, especially), from Fredericksburg, to Chancellorsville, to Bull Run 1&2, to the Vicksburg and Atlanta Campaigns…the list goes on. Outside of those battles, most of the rest were fought in what you’d call “border states” like Maryland and Kentucky. The only major battle fought unambiguously in the North, at least that I can think of, was Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania. So from that perspective, virtually the entire war was fought in the context of an invasion of the South.
South just wanted to be left alone, but the North had other ideas.

Bingo, someone knows their history. It was a war on Northern aggression and states rights.

[RollWaveRoll]

USA is the least racist country in the world.

I spit out of my coffee in laughter! You must've not visited many countries. Are we the worst? No. But we're far from the best.

Actually it is the least racist, easily top 5. I’ve been to 73 countries if that makes you think that gives me a leg up for some reason which it doesn’t.

Theres slaves in many countries today including China. Slavery has been going on for thousands of years in basically every country in the world.....long long before the USA became a thing. We only became a country in 1776....Ours didn’t last very long at all in the grand scale of things.

You don’t see the media trying to burn the cities down in these other countries do you?

[golfnut69]

one more tidbit...Lincoln "blockaded" the port of Charleston, ( protected by Ft Sumpter) which is an act of war, thus the firing upon Ft Sumpter by CSA troops...ole JFK learned a lesson from this...he "quarantined" Cuba, not "blockaded" it

[McWave]

Devil's advocate (full discretion I'm totally against renaming) . All the people who get up in arms about ULL using University of Louisiana, making them sound like a flagship, blah blah blah. What if we reclaim University of Louisiana? Or even do it gradually, use University of Louisiana - Tulane for the first 50 years til all the grey hairs die out.

The problem here is that Louisiana fought for the south. Eventually, the all southern confederate states will need to be renamed. (sarcasm)

[Wave755]

Why oh why would any Tulane loyalist want to be associated with the guy identified with the losers???

(Come to think of it, maybe that's where TU's pervasive negative mindset comes from. It's literally in the DNA...)

Confirmed, MicMan is a troll.

[Bicoastalwave]

I’m sure most in the north wish the north had just let the south go at this point and they could keep Donald Trump, obesity, illiteracy etc that they so badly want.

The slippery slope associated with cancel culture is the problem. Based on the precedent set with Dixie, truly we should cross off the South from everything. Let’s go burn some compasses and maps

Spoiler alert: Yale isn’t going to change its name and Tulane will use whatever their defense is as cover. The article linked above to the Yale News does have a nice breakdown

[swampnik]

The Civil War happened. It's not going to disappear, no matter how much those Americans living in this current place and time want to erase it. It was about more than just the abolishment of slavery. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were fighting with as much conviction and sense of purpose as those fighting for the North. We cannot (and must not attempt) re-write history. The notion of changing names from those that supported the South in the Civil War is a passing fancy. I'm not saying we should celebrate those lives, but we cannot erase them, either. There were great men on both sides of the conflict among the states. Taking down their statues and stopping teachings of their accomplishments is plain and simply wrong. And this is coming from someone that believes in one race--the Human Race.

This is a moment in time, just as the first shots fired in the 1860's were. We need to teach our collective history in order to learn from it. Trying to erase it will only lead to future generations repeating the mistakes of the past. Who are we, 150 years after the fact, trying to rid ourselves of a past we're not proud of? We owe it to the future generations to pass along the lessons of past mistakes.

Not only that the North certainly invaded the South to start the war. Union troops crossed the Mason-Dixon line with its troops. Union troops early on attacked New Orleans to deny the Mississippi to Southern shipping. Before long, Grant came ravaging down the Tennessee in 1862, attacking Mississippi and Alabama and curling back on Memphis. Ditto in 1863 as Union forces embarked from Chattanooga on their effort to bisect the Southland.

One final, terrible invasion of Virginia later, and it was all over. Many of the highest profile battles of the War were fought in the South (Virginia, especially), from Fredericksburg, to Chancellorsville, to Bull Run 1&2, to the Vicksburg and Atlanta Campaigns…the list goes on. Outside of those battles, most of the rest were fought in what you’d call “border states” like Maryland and Kentucky. The only major battle fought unambiguously in the North, at least that I can think of, was Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania. So from that perspective, virtually the entire war was fought in the context of an invasion of the South.
South just wanted to be left alone, but the North had other ideas.

+1
Fare thee well wayward sisters (but no harm come to you).
-Horace Greeley

Lincoln thought otherwise, so the term traitor was born and promulgated to the extent that 700k good men in blue and gray perished. Do you think a CSA left alone in peace, would have been able to figure out how to end slavery on their own terms. Southern citizens were already finding it intolerably cruel and getting tired of the institution at the beginning of the conflict. Many here seem to think slavery would still be flourishing in our region in 2020. Voyons!

[Bigschtick]

Why oh why would any Tulane loyalist want to be associated with the guy identified with the losers???

(Come to think of it, maybe that's where TU's pervasive negative mindset comes from. It's literally in the DNA...)

Confirmed, MicMan is a troll.

yes, and a mean spirited one at that!! LOL LOL YUCK YUCK YUCK!

[swampnik]

one more tidbit...Lincoln "blockaded" the port of Charleston, ( protected by Ft Sumpter) which is an act of war, thus the firing upon Ft Sumpter by CSA troops...ole JFK learned a lesson from this...he "quarantined" Cuba, not "blockaded" it

Yes, but Lincoln could have accepted a "compromise" to war. The Sumter bombardment lasted 33 hours and no one was killed (though one Federal guard died later of wounds). Most officers out of West Point thought the Constitution as written did guarantee a state or states states the right to succeed. They were not expecting Lincoln to actually wage war against his fellow Americans (which is what they were, not traitors). After the war, 30k Rebels and their families left for other lands (though most returned); being that distraught to stay and have Federal rule which amounted to 12 years of tanks like Belfast endured.

[swampnik]

Was the Duke of Orleans a racist?

And, was Joan of Arc, “The Maid of Orleans,” a religious bigot and xenophobe?

I know a lady who will chain herself to JoA Jeanne d'Arc statue if need be if a mob comes calling. Plus too many Catholics in NOLA to let that scenario develop.

[Wave755]

Spoiler alert: Yale isn’t going to change its name and Tulane will use whatever their defense is as cover. The article linked above to the Yale News does have a nice breakdown

+1, GW & Washington University seem immune from name changes as well for now. I would think only 'Ole Robert E. Lee at W & L is in any danger of getting the axe. And yes, Tulane is quite prone to ape or mimic the Northeastern elite. If Yale is secure, in all likelihood so is Tulane.

[mbawavefan12]

one more tidbit...Lincoln "blockaded" the port of Charleston, ( protected by Ft Sumpter) which is an act of war, thus the firing upon Ft Sumpter by CSA troops...ole JFK learned a lesson from this...he "quarantined" Cuba, not "blockaded" it

Yes, but Lincoln could have accepted a "compromise" to war. The Sumter bombardment lasted 33 hours and no one was killed (though one Federal guard died later of wounds). Most officers out of West Point thought the Constitution as written did guarantee a state or states states the right to succeed. They were not expecting Lincoln to actually wage war against his fellow Americans (which is what they were, not traitors). After the war, 30k Rebels and their families left for other lands (though most returned); being that distraught to stay and have Federal rule which amounted to 12 years of tanks like Belfast endured.

They fought for slavery. Freakin SLAVERY.

I don’t get this revisionist history. Don’t pull states rights bullshit, they fought to have the right to enslave people who had dark skin. Good god. Wtf is wrong with some of you.

Honoring men with statues (well after the fact) who fought a horrendous war in defense of slavery and you cannot see how for some people that is incredibly offensive.
Whatever, ya’ll will be in the wrong side of history. Germany morns their attrocities, they don’t celebrate them. It’s the best example we have. Wtf is wrong with some of you. Have some empathy. Put yourself in the shoes of others.
Or better yet, just keep having your decision made for you on virtually every issue and then bitch on a message board as if any change will occur.
I don’t think TU should change their name, if they in fact do decide, I will re assess. The rest of you can go f yourself.

[golfnut69]

Lets look at the civil war from an economic standpoint...textile mfgs in the northern states did not take it kindly that the southern states, after leaving the Union, began shipping larger quantiites of cotton and sugarcane to Europe, thus crippling their ability to mfg goods...the first states to succeed left the union in Dec 1860 and succession was completed by Feb 1861...the blockade of Charleston and the bombing of Ft Sumpter was in April 1861 . the emancipation proclimation was not signed until 1863...not sure if this fact or the truth...I will call Biden to find out

[tpstulane]

10 reasons for the Civil War.
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... ates.shtml
Slavery is mentioned as #9 but indirectly. Tariffs top reason.

TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

[mbawavefan12]

10 reasons for the Civil War.
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... ates.shtml
Slavery is mentioned as #9 but indirectly. Tariffs top reason.

TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

Ah go fuck off. I freakin love the folks who say it wasn’t ultimately about the right to protect their economic value to enslave human beings. It’s so cute.
Keep up the fight!!

FWI, the internet article you referenced is an assault on human intelligence.

[tpstulane]

10 reasons for the Civil War.
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... ates.shtml
Slavery is mentioned as #9 but indirectly. Tariffs top reason.

TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

Ah go fuck off. I freakin love the folks who say it wasn’t ultimately about the right to protect their economic value to enslave human beings. It’s so cute.
Keep up the fight!!

FWI, the internet article you referenced is an assault on human intelligence.

Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy.

[mbawavefan12]

Lets look at the civil war from an economic standpoint...textile mfgs in the northern states did not take it kindly that the southern states, after leaving the Union, began shipping larger quantiites of cotton and sugarcane to Europe, thus crippling their ability to mfg goods...the first states to succeed left the union in Dec 1860 and succession was completed by Feb 1861...the blockade of Charleston and the bombing of Ft Sumpter was in April 1861 . the emancipation proclimation was not signed until 1863...not sure if this fact or the truth...I will call Biden to find out

The south fought a war to protect the right to enslave human beings. Whatever aspect in the pecking order of reasons to fight , it is always there,
Oh and then after the war the southern leadership decided to segregate blacks from whites in virtually every aspect of society, surely the fault of those pesky northern elites. Public transportation, housing, water fountain, schools, business, colleges, any school, ATHLETICS, you name it.
You should be ashamed of yourself for arguing against that war. Go f yourself. .

[mbawavefan12]

10 reasons for the Civil War.
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... ates.shtml
Slavery is mentioned as #9 but indirectly. Tariffs top reason.

TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

Ah go fuck off. I freakin love the folks who say it wasn’t ultimately about the right to protect their economic value to enslave human beings. It’s so cute.
Keep up the fight!!

FWI, the internet article you referenced is an assault on human intelligence.

Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy.

Clearly it was about economic freedom.

Gradually free SLAVES? Didn’t have the right to free human beings from slavery? Your articles are a total embarrassment. Get fucked.

After their great war to protect economic freedom, this happened. Clearly the fault of those greedy Northerners.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/lync ... ostpopular

[tpstulane]

10 reasons for the Civil War.
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... ates.shtml
Slavery is mentioned as #9 but indirectly. Tariffs top reason.

TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

Ah go fuck off. I freakin love the folks who say it wasn’t ultimately about the right to protect their economic value to enslave human beings. It’s so cute.
Keep up the fight!!

FWI, the internet article you referenced is an assault on human intelligence.

Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy.

Clearly it was about economic freedom.

Gradually free SLAVES? Didn’t have the right to free human beings from slavery? Your articles are a total embarrassment. Get fucked.

After their great war to protect economic freedom, this happened.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/lync ... ostpopular

It’s history not my fault. No need to use that foul language with a personal attack thank you.

Right here in New Orleans...
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/lync ... ostpopular

[golfnut69]

another aspect, was Lincoln's proclamtion that all Terrorties seeking Statehood were to be "Free" only...no more "Slave" states...the CSA seceded, to give this terrorties a choice, of being free or slave....

[winwave]

Guys it is secede not succeed.

[DfromCT]

Guys it is secede not succeed.

It isn't even pronounced the same!