Should Confederate Statues Be Removed or Remain in Place?

I believe the Confederate monuments should be properly taken down and kept in a safe place behind closed doors. Although they are pieces of history, they represent the bad pieces and shouldn't be honored or remembered for that through a statue. Mr. Suber's idea of taking sledgehammers to the monuments seems too extensive. As I mentioned before, they are still pieces of history. On to Mr. Stewart's perspective, I believe that comparing the monuments to the pyramids and the Roman Colosseum is a bit drastic. The Confederate statues are more recently built, and race issues are still huge problem in America today. Although structures such as the Egyptian pyramids and the Roman Colosseum were built by slaves, they are extremely ancient architectures and do not specifically represent slavery. I believe the New Orleans mayor, Mitch Landrieu, wants the statues to be taken down because of the offense that it causes some people. As mentioned before, I believe that the statues should be taken down and placed behind close doors of perhaps a government building. That way, the statue isn't being destroyed, but won't be open to the public to represent a racist, Confederate man. If they were to remain, it would be a good idea to add the historical content behind it.

After reading the article, “Should Confederate Statues be Removed or Remain in Place?” by Shannon Doyne, I believe Confederate statues should remain standing in southern states. Although many believe the statues stand for white supremacy and the values the Confederate states of America held over 150 years ago, I believe the statues are a part of our American history and remind U.S citizens today of what could have been. Confederate generals such as “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee were on the “wrong side” of history, but their leadership skills were inspiring and they’re remembered in our history textbooks as strong individuals who lead their men into battle. Why would the government want to take down a statute that not only commemorated these brave men but additionally removed a major part of American history and culture? The statues should also remain standing because it can show Americans what could have happened to their country. If the Confederate States of America had won the Civil War, the United States would be split into two and each would have very different values. It was the failure of these Confederate generals that lead to the ultimate success of the United States of America. The statues in the south should remain standing not so Confederate values and principles can remain in place, but so the rest of America can admire their leadership skills and remind themselves of what America could have turned into.

People talk of the racial conflicts that these statues support, the treason that they represent, and the other problems that people have stated. One thing that people tend to leave out, however, is context.
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson all were traitors to their country, Britain. They all seceded, just like the South did. They also all owned slaves. By some people's logic, they should not be celebrated. Their statues should be removed, and they should not be on our currency. But we don't, because we understand that they lived in a time where slavery was accepted. We don't because we like the country and the things they represented, even if it was wrong.
Let's compare the Confederacy to a young America. Both allowed slavery. Both had seceded, through military conflict, from their 'rightful' rulers. Both promoted and enforced racism and segregation. The only difference here is the way we look at each situation. People view the American Revolution as a noble, just war against imposed rule and cultural differences from their rulers, but view the South's secession, which fought for many of the same things, as immoral, unjust, and racist.
Slavery was legal at the time. It was banned DURING the war. The men incorporated in these statues fought for the same thing Washington and Jefferson and all the founding fathers did: the right to live life as they wanted.
Maybe it's time to revisit our past and think real hard before we take such drastic measures.

I can understand the some of the american peoples feeling in this topic. But we have to remember this is our history. These were men and women that fought and died for what half there country believed. Yes it was ugly. Yes it was wrong. But that's why these statues stand. They stand to remind us of what has happened and what can if we forget. These statues are our history. And we should cherish that history and keep it safe. Not let it be tore down and forget.

Let me ask you a question, will taking down these statutes of great Americans solve anything? My answer is NO it will not. History is history and we a bound to repeat it if we forget it. We can not hide from our countries past nor should we change it to put it in a favorable light. When will it stop? Do you have to take down all statues of great men because they owned slaves? Should we remove them from our money and history books also? This is political correctness at its worst because it's on its way out and trying to leave with a bang.

The confederate monuments in New Orleans and throughout the U.S. should be destroyed publicly and joyously. I agree with Mr. Suber’s perspective; they are icons of white supremacy and their mere presence validates blatant racism today. This issue isn’t about erasing or retaining history. This is about how history is displayed, and from whose perspectives. One thing Mr. Steward forgets is that the black people of New Orleans live with the effects of slavery everyday. The same cannot be said for the descendants of slaves killed in the making of the Pyramids of Egypt and in the Roman Coliseum. The Coliseum, Pyramids, and Confederate Monuments all involve slavery but a crucial difference between the ancient monuments and modern statues is that slaves in antiquity came from all countries and races where as slavery in the U.S targeted people of colour. Many slaves killed in the Colosseum were Christians. Christians are doing rather well in Rome today. They are hardly oppressed economically or socially. The same cannot be said for the black population of New Orleans. Charles Washmon is right that cities should not be deprived of their history. The best solution to this conflict, however, to replace the statues of confederate leaders with statues of civil rights leaders and other heroes of the Civil War. These figures we should be happy to put on a pedestal.

I think that leaving the statue up is the best solution, the reason I think this is because if you take it down you will be taking down a memorial. Just because that object represents a bad thing in history does not mean it does not have the right to remain where it is. In the article the question asked towards the mayor says “I ask you, Mitch, should the Pyramids in Egypt be destroyed since they were built entirely from slave labor,” (“Fausset”). This is a great way to show that other monuments have not been torn down even though they are a sign of slavery.

I also think the New Orleans mayor wants it to be taken down because he does not want people thinking that New Orleans is pro slavery. Due to the fact that the statue is of a Confederate, I can see how many people would think that the location is in favor of slavery. This would cause the tourism in New Orleans to decrease.

The Confederate statues should remain where they stand. These statues are part of American history and represent the struggle our country faced. These monuments were constructed during the Civil War, a strong point in American history. Mr. Suber’s opinion on the statues are unclear. He thinks the meaning behind the statues is that blacks are lesser human beings (Doyne). Although the monuments may have meant that during the time of war, the monuments now can be looked upon as a reminder that we are a new and improved place.
The perspective of Mr. Stewart on the pyramids and colosseum is that, “They were built by slaves, who lived horrible lives under oppression, but they still stand today and we learn so much from seeing them” (Doyne). In other words, if you take away major monuments you will erase the history of that time period. Comparing the statues to the Roman Colosseum and pyramids of Egypt is accurate. Those monuments help us learn about past cultures even though they were built with slavery, a concept humans despise. So if the pyramids can stay in Egypt then the statue of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee should stay in Louisiana.

The mayor only wants to get re-elected. He couldn't care less about the statue or slavery or the well-being of citizens. If he opposed removing the statue, the media would blow it out of proportion and he would get less than a tenth of the black vote next election. The reason he does good things will only ever be because it happens to align with his own want to be re-elected.

Monuments mean different thoughts to different people.. one thing remains. It is a part of history.. No matter if you think they should be removed, they should not be destroyed. You can't changed history of any race. It is what it is. Good, Bad or Ugly, it is history. It is a reminder to all, how far we have come, but also how far we need to go.. you can't erase it. can't change it. It is what it is.. I sure hope they don't rewrite the history books, because they are offensive. All Races need to know our history, and how it really took place. There will never be an agreement of the 'What's and Why's" it happened. There will never be an agreement if it is offensive or not. It Happened! As for who built the pyramids in Egypt, as depicted in some posts, they could have been slaves, or common folks, or craftsmen! (personally, I think craftsmen of that day) They are a part of history, regardless!

The civil war was a much larger issue than just slavery. By destroying the statues not only are we destroying monuments of history, but we are also disrespecting the lives that were lost during the war. Relocating the statues would be the ideal solution to reduce conflict on both sides. If we were able to put these relics in a museum, the history would still remain, but without the conflict of whether or not they should be kept in a public setting. By letting them take down the statues this could lead to further statues being eradicated which will only deprive the future generations of their heritage. As the philosopher, George Santayana once said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” if we take away the history of the civil war and the wrong we have done, as a nation, in the past, we are only asking for it to happen again.

The civil war was a much larger issue than just slavery. By destroying the statues not only are we destroying monuments of history, but we are also disrespecting the lives that were lost during the war. Relocating the statues would be the ideal solution to reduce conflict on both sides. If we were able to put these relics in a museum , the history would still remain, but without the conflict of whether or not they should be kept in a public setting. By letting them take down the statues this could lead to further statues being eradicated which will only deprive the future generations of their heritage. As the philosopher George Santayana once said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” if we take away the history of the civil war and the wrong we have done, as a nation, in the past, we are only asking for it to happen again.

Mr. Charles Washmon, I understand your concern for the loss of an important piece of New Orland’s history. However, because New Orleans is a history-laden city, onlookers will label New Orleans as a white supremacist city, although 60% of its citizens are black and do not support white supremacy. It’s more pragmatic to listen to what the citizens have to say about the statues and go with their views on their subject since a city is most commonly represented by the thoughts and ideals of the people. If the views of the people are not met then the past will cause more problems.

There are many solutions but also many people’s opinions. There will always be people unsatisfied with any decision that has been made, but personally the mayor should not remove the confederate monuments because the monuments are apart of history it shows that all the fighting was for a purpose. We think it wasn’t right to compare the Colosseum and the pyramids to the statues because it had nothing to do with Jefferson Davis and the confederates were slave states. Mayor Mitch Landline wants peace and no conflict, he was just trying to please some people but it just created more problems. The best solution to this conflict is to put the monuments in a museum.

Our opinion on Mr. Suber's perspective would have to be that the monument is put there to remind the African Americans of their past but the African Americans want them to take them down because it is showing racism to them. Mr. Suber's comparison wasn’t right because the pyramids in Egypt were meant to show the power the emperor had, while the monument was meant to show a thoughtful comment about the history. The reason why the mayor wants to remove the monument is because he wants to help the African American community to forget about what they been through. If they choose not to take down the monument they should put up a Martin Luther king one right next to it because shows the good things that we went through not just the bad.

The monuments in New Orleans has brought some ideological dilemma to its citizens on whether or not the statues need to be removed. Monuments are created to remember historic moments and culture. The statue itself isn't bad, but the history behind it is the problem. I agree with Suber that the monuments stand for white supremacy. It’s disrespectful to African Americans to see a symbol that’s honoring that past consisting of African American discrimination. Mr. Stewart's comparison between the statues and the Roman Colosseum and the pyramids of Egypt is not valid. Although the Colosseum and Pyramids used slave labor, the use of the statue idolizes figures who stand for an unjust cause. Furthermore, Mitch Landrieu wants to remove the statue because he believes that a monument that was built upon the efforts of slaves shouldn’t be praised or be used as a tour attraction. Lastly, Mr. Washmon fears that the removal of the statues would deprive a history-laden city of a crucial layer of its past. Washmon is right because these statues are a crucial layer of the city’s past, so removing them could lead towards a society that will forget the past. The best solution is to have a museum obtain the statue and cherish the rich history that comes with it rather than cause conflict between 2 races.

What the point is here is the erection of monuments to people who led rebellion and treason against the government of our country. Monuments are an honor: ordinarily we don't honor, say, Benedict Arnold, who betrayed us during the Revolutionary War. He doesn't get a monument. Why does Jefferson Davis get one? The answer is obvious: the people who erected the monument honored Davis' treasonous rebellion and wanted to memorialize it and him.

Yes, many early Americans benefited from slavery, or owned slaves, or even has sexual relations with women that they owned. That's a different matter and one we need to think about. But those people, many of them founders of our nation, did not try to destroy the United States of America or fight a war to perpetuate slavery. The men on these "monuments" did.

First off, it is not at all clear that the pyramids of Egypt were built by slaves.
Secondly, there is a difference between on one hand events that took place thousands of years ago, and have no direct bearing on our values today; and on the other hand events that are within the time-span of our current culture, and whose influence influences current politics and ethics. Thirdly, removing offending statutes to a museum is not the same as destroying them and erasing their memory.

How utterly offensive for The New York Times to question whether confederate monuments should remain standing anywhere in the United States of America.

Those monuments celebrate treason. Those monuments honor racist oppression. Those monuments stand as symbols of White brutality and violence against African-Americans. But The New York Times would actually raise the possibility that these monuments might be legitimate symbols of anything decent and good?

Shame! This appears to be yet another example of The Times' rightward drift into appeasement of Donald Trump and his White Supremacist supporters. It is offensive to any decent American, and demeans the memory of the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who fought on the right side of morality during the Civil War.

Shame on The Times!

My view of this issue is that these monuments to the Confederacy are a part of our history, and there is much of our history that was wrongheaded and can always be viewed by some group as insulting or offensive. A great many of our ancestors, aside from black slaves, were discriminated against when they came here. My Italian ancestors had crosses burned in front of their houses in the 1800s. While this is no comparison to what happened to the slaves, it is nonetheless a sad part of our history and cannot be erased by removing a few monuments. I think we can learn a lot from our failures and run the risk of minimizing the wrongs we have done when we try to erase the evidence of the existence of our wrongs. I would be more in favor of (and others here have suggested this) adding a plaque to these monuments pointing out that, while these will be offensive to some, they are a significant if unfortunate part of our history. We should learn the lessons of our true history rather than try to minimize its offensiveness simply by removing visual reminders. In the long run, I think removing monuments is historically dangerous and more wrong than leaving them in place and modifying their message to reflect the lessons of history.

I think it's simple. Don't destroy them. Put them in a museum. Let people in the future marvel at the stupidity and brutality of the past. Unfortunately, this will be for the future because it is clear that the stupidity and brutality has yet to fade into human history. But it will. And to help that along, let's get them into a museum exhibit.

Some people believe it is best to pretend it never happened.

It is Absolutely outrageous that they would ever take down this historical statue what wrong has it down to them. If it "opposes" others viewpoints they can just stop visiting the harmless statue

I don't agree with what those individuals did during the Civil War, but if we destroy those statues, then what they did and represented will be forgotten from history. Then, if that happens, then it's possible that those same atrocities could happen again. Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
I believe that the statues should remain, with an alternative plaque on them telling of the suffering of the slaves and the horrific things that we did to our fellow man.

My ancestors did not own slaves. They actually came to this country as indentured servants, agreeing to work to gain their independence and freedom. Some of my ancestors also fought in the civil war, on both sides of the conflict. The ones one fought for the South were not fighting for the right to own slaves, they had none. They were fighting for what they believed to be an assault on their homeland, the deep South. They fought bravely and some of them died in the conflict, sacrificing everything for what they believed in. To them, the confederacy was their country. The monuments erected after the war were to recognize the sacrifices they made. How is this a sign of discrimination? I served twenty years in the US Navy and proudly name myself an American. I am not a "white" American. I am not a "black" American, an "Asian" America, nor a native American. We all have varied backgrounds, but by living in this country and being a citizen we are an American. Me being of Welsh descent does not make me any better or worse than someone of African Descent. We cannot erase history. Removing these statues and monuments would be like tearing down the old concentration camps and saying the holocaust never happened. Historical monuments and artifacts serve a purpose. To remind us the lessons of the past. Trying to hide our heads in the sand by destroying them is not the way to go. Instead, use them to educate and to remind us not to make the same mistakes in the future.

They should REMAIN they serve to educate and have a didactic affect on conversation and culture. Do not eliminate history or burn books rather learn from them. What next demand that the Egyptian pyramids be torn down because those were built by slaves? Where does the nonsense end.

There are at least two questions here. 1. Should the monuments be destroyed? 2. Should they continue to have places of honor?

Most people would say no to destruction (though an earlier suggestion about handing everyone a sledge hammer had a certain ceremonial appeal).

It's the "place of honor" question that is trickier. With earlier slaveholding leaders, let's use Jefferson as an example, there is both good and bad from their legacies. I would leave those monuments inn place, but in some way alter the context. (A statue of Frederick Douglass maybe.)

Monuments to the Civil War leaders raise harder questions. They were placed there to shape the memory of the war, in a way that obscured the defense of slavery as a cause, that encouraged white southerners to remember the cause as noble, and that papered over the violence southern whites used to end Reconstruction with what they called Redemption.

The monuments were part of the process that created legal segregation and supported the violence used continually to keep African American from voting. The harm from that still lives.

In the end, I would prefer to change the setting radically rather than shift the monuments. New monuments that challenge the old. But I can't say that the people who want them removed are wrong. Either is better than keeping things just as they are

First, I think it is imperative that people that non-blacks recognize that this is not our choice. The black community is the one that has to deal with seeing a historical representation of oppression still standing in their city, not the white community and not even people of color as a whole. For me, it seems that this is a choice between idealism and pragmatism. While it seems incredibly cathartic to demolish the statues, especially in the manner that Suber suggests. It would send a message the remnants of segregation blacks still have to deal with are not acceptable -- that even southern governments will no longer support the last gasps of the Confederacy. Yet in saying that, I am struck by another truth - that there is still disproportionate access to education, clean water, social mobility, and countless other advantages that only whites enjoy. Not to mention the resurgence of racist ideology in the age of Donald Trump. Yet even as all of this is happening, many whites still try and cling to the notion that we are "post-racial." We aren't, and demolishing Confederate statues helps us forget a part of our history that is still of critical importance today. Imagine the conservative media -- "whites are the minority! we're getting attacked!" Ultimately, it seems to me that it is a decision for the black community to make -- strike a blow against racism now and risk the delusion that we are post racial, or live with a constant reminder of past and present oppression.

The Confederate monuments should be kept for historic reasons. Mr. Suber, along with other protesters, protect their radical ideas while overlooking effective ways of persuasion or assimilation. Mr. Stewart lacks effective reasoning with his comparison to the Colosseum and the Pyramids. This is because the Colosseum and the Pyramids served a function aspect to the society of their nation. For instance, the Colosseum served as a battle arena and the Pyramids served as burial grounds for their kings, the monument serves little functional purpose. Mitch Landrieu, seemingly progressive and supportive for equality, is also a biased view in this argument. The possibility that Landrieu is catering to the largest demographic for a higher approval rating hasn’t been refuted. Charles Washmon fears the removal of the monuments would deprive history. The fear of depriving society of this historical reference is relevant; however, the party that wants the statue to stay are mainly comprised of white supremacists, as seen in Fausset’s twitter posts. The best solution to this conflict would be a compromise, ideally, placing the statues in a museum. This way the statues are out of sight and we aren't paralleling the Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

Those statues are a part of History . The History of New Orleans , The South. I understand that African Americans are reminded of the past . but leave them there to remind people how far we've come in changing the landscape of society. What if italy was to remove all of the statues that reminded them of the Roman Empire, or tear down the pyramids in Egypt.

The statues were erected as part of a program of legally enforced white supremacy. They really should be removed from places of honor. Put them in a a museum on the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow.

What's next to tear down? I traveled all through the deep south with my family many years ago. We went to New Orleans, Jeff Davis home, Appomattox. I learned a tremendous amount about the history of my country seeing it first hand. The civil war happened & its over !! We cannot change what happened by removing these historic places. It really will not change anything. Whats next - the TwinTtowers memorial because people don't like the treatment of Muslims or the Golden Gate bridge because it's a funky color? How about Auschwitz and Dachau?
I mean see how ridiculous this is? Someone is always going to be offended. It's history we can learn from. Every country in the world has monuments they would rather live without-but that's the price you pay NOT to forget the horrors of racism and war. This not a bipartisian issue so leave the political junk out of it. Not everything is about the election.

Southerners, as well as most Americans, have a very skewed and wrong picture of the south during the civil war. First of all, it is estimated that over 40% of the able bodied men in the south went to fight in the Union Army (West Virginia was one result).

Secondly, most of the southern state referendums on secession were either rigged or completely controlled by white slave owners. So there is indeed a big question about how much of the non-slave owning whites in the south ever wanted to go to secede let alone go to war.

Third, to have statues of Lee or Davis is ignoring the fact that after the defeat of Atlanta and Savannah, these two men continued the war for months, costing 100,000s of Union and Confederate lives. Why? In order to ensure that they would not be tried for treason and hung. Their own lives were worth more than the thousands of soldiers.

Finally, the whole institution of slavery created a permanent WHITE underclass since the big landowners had slaves to bake bread, blacksmith, sew, raise horses, etc. Slavery stopped the rise of a skilled middle class in the south, resulting in a huge impoverished population which continued even after the civil war. Slavery was an economic disaster for the south...

I am an Art Historian and educator at the secondary level. My students look at work throughout history that has been created for kings, the Catholic Church, and for leaders of countries. Much of it is propaganda that supports a particular position or an idea. I am not in any way a supporter of the Confederate agenda nor slavery or the suppression of an entire people, however, the artwork created during and after this heinous period in our history is a visual reminder. Should we wipe out history and pretend it never happened? A plaque or disclaimer can be added to the existing statues as a further explanation of why the piece is there, and what it meant at the time.These monuments should remain in situ so we can learn about and teach the history of our country and the sometimes tragic consequences of our actions as a country. Could anything be more timely?

There is no need for such statures any more, now that the symbol of racist oppression is in the white house.

The glorification of Confederate soldiers throughout the South is an affront to African-Americans, because the individuals being glorified rose to power through the subjugation of black Americans. These monuments are unlike the Colosseum and the pyramids because those sites had a function beyond being laudatory; most of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans were not battle sites, large arms, or places of historical importance like Robert E. Lee's home, but statues of high-ranking Confederate military officials. There are ways to remember our history, and the country's collective shame over slavery, without forcing African Americans to walk by monuments to their enslavement every day: create a Museum of the Civil War, or exhibits dedicated to the Civil War in freely accessible spaces, allowing us to remember our history without placing it on a pedestal. In the place of these statues, place memorials to African-Americans killed by slavery or forced to fight in the war, civil rights activists, and those who proudly considered themselves "American" rather than those who eschewed such a label.

Surprised that this topic even exists. Confederate statues, no matter how painful of a reminder of past mishaps it may be, should never be removed. It's part of American History. You can't just 'erase' something out of the history books just because you're not comfortable with it. What's more is that it might even serve as a reminder--an immortalized symbol of the unfortunate things we've done in the past--and how we must never repeat the same mistake twice.

I believe that the statutes should stay because they are a part of history the Confederacy wasn't all about slavery as people think it was about getting away from the union and avoiding the union taxes that the union wanted to put on the confederacy. so NO they shouldn't be tearing down parts of history even if some people say that the statues encourage white supremacy they do not encourage white supremacy they encourage that the south was a strong and independent country.

How does this improve the lives of the disproportionately large number of underprivileged minorities in New Orleans? Will this improve education, health, housing, poverty, or income disparity? I would really mad at my mayor if he wasted all this political capital on some symbolic act while my community languished at or near the bottom of every major standard of living statistic.

Those that study their history and learn it have nothing to fear from it. On either side were men of commitment, brave and noble men who fought for their cause be it to save the union or states rights.
What we should be fearing are those that attempt to re-write history to their liking, the burners of books and ideas just because they do not agree and those who have not studied the constitution and reasons for it's various clauses.

In the article, two sides are disputing whether the statues of Davis, P. G. T. Beauregard, and Robert E. Lee, which all of which were a part of the confederate army, should be removed or kept in place. In the article, Mr. Suber states that the city should give the community sledgehammers and take down the statue by force, just like the Berlin wall. This opinion is one of the worse solutions because, not only is it not civilized, but it could lead to violence breaking out during the action. Mitch Landrieu wants the statue to be removed, in my opinion, because he wants to have the public and social media's liking in his favor, rather than because he legitimately supports the movement. Charles Washmon, a supporter of keeping the statute, states that it would be removing a layer of history. I both agree and disagree with this. I agree with it because it would be removing history to some extent, but I don't think they are in the appropriate place, which leads me to my next point. As a solution, I think that the best resolution to this argument is to yes, remove the statues, but instead of them being destroyed, place them in a museum, so that instead of being seen as glorified, they can be seen as a historical landmark.

The solution is simple, make a "Losers' Garden" somewhere in the city and stick all the statues and their associated plaques inside. That way the history is still available to the public but the context that the ideals of the statues are outdated is tied to it.

In my own opinion, i would have the confederate statue removed and placed into a museum for historical study rather than to remain or to be destroyed. Mr. Stewarts comparison to the Roman Colosseum and the Egyptian Pyramids merely reinforces my own opinion. We continue to take care of these major monuments due to their historical importance rather than the past sins. Mayor Mitch Landrieu most likely wants to remove the statue due to the symbolization of white supremacy in the past and how it may further cause distrust or tension between the citizens of New orleans. Charles Washman believes the removal of the statue would remove a large and crucial part of the history in the city.

I suspect these statues are an affront to many African American citizens who live in the south and have to see them. Why don't we build a Civil War museum so people can go there to either learn more about this tragedy or view these statues if that's what they want to do? I say take them down, if only because it shows respect for our African American citizens.

Obviously, Republican money is secretly behind this.
So they don't lose their base, after screwing up healthcare.
And the cry will go on and on, all the way to the Washington Monument, and changing the name of Washington D.C.
All to demonize "liberals."
The sudden mania to allow anatomical males into the women's room, is another of their tactics.
Remember when, years back, gay marriage, with videos of kissing gays, was trotted out before every national election?
Robert E. Lee was an outstanding general of high integrity. Don't forget, he was Lincoln's first choice to lead the Yankee troops.

The south signed an agreement of surrender at Appomattox where by they would rejoin the union they had seceded from 5 years earlier. They lost the war rather badly. Union occupation forces who were there for years after the war would have dealt a swift blow to anyone waving a rebel flag or erecting a statue honoring a confederate soldier. As soon as the union forces left after continued lobbying by southern politicians things began to change. The flag was used as a symbol to rally southerners again despite its meaning to so many southern blacks. As far as I am concerned no rebel flag should have ever been allowed to fly again over any public building in America. Private property is a different story ...by all means, but to fly a confederate flag or erect statues of confederate officers on public structures or spaces who fought to keep slavery intact goes against the constitutional rights of every American. The South lost ...its that simple

1. I think the Statue is a strong part of history and it should be kept because it is a reminder of how America has changed. Taking it down does nothing but try and cover up the past. No harm is being done by keeping it.
2. I think we should compare. This statue is no better than the pyramids. If we remove this statue then why not remove the pyramids. The statue in some eyes is a bad thing because they don't like the history of it while others look at it with respect because it reminds them of someone who fought for what they believed in even though it may not have been right.
3. The mayor may want it removed because he is looking at it in the wrong way. Instead of thinking of the negative. Remind people of the positive in this statue. Remind people of who the man was and not what he wanted.
4. You can't cover up and hide history. Removing this statute teaches nothing.
5. I think we should keep the statues because why remove a part of history just to stir up anger and frustration. Its part of our history so keep it. People just need to look at the statue a different way.