One could argue that all these statues commemorate men who, although on the wrong side of history, nonetheless fought in earnest for the principles they believed in to defend their vision of what America should be.
That’s why the US also has all those statues of Charles Cornwallis and streets named after William Howe and schools named after Benedict Arnold.
Sure it is, and so’s bear’s ears. If the local community would rather not have a federally run park surrounding their town, then they should be able to but up the land and use it for something else.
I am specifically saying, as I do have a (miniscule) say over it, as it is a federal property, that I would have no problem with the town reclaiming those lands and putting them to productive use. I fully recognize that the most productive use it can currently be is in its current form, as I can’t think of any land use that would likely generate more revenue than it currently does in tourism, but if that were to change, then it’s not really fair to the residents of the town to force them to have pretty much the entirety of their town not allowed to be developed for other uses.
It would be helpful to all concerned if they became knowledgeable regarding the facts. First, there are ten monuments which the Congress authorized to be placed at the west edge of the battlefield, one for each Confederate State. These monuments went up over a period of ten years. The last going up in the early Sixties. South Carolina’s monument has been defaced many times. The “Virginia Monument” is placed on the battlefield, in the center of what was the Confederate infantry line that moved to attack the Union line on the 3rd. The monument has an equestrian statue of R.E. Lee on the top. The inscription at the base reads: “Virginia, to her sons.” To expect these monuments to come down, you will need to garner a majority vote in the Congress of the United States. Good luck with that.
To offer an answer to the quoted question, one must have an intelligent, objective understanding of American History in general, and the objective cause of the Civil War, in particular. From the substance of the many replies connected to this thread, it appears that few, if any, of those providing replies, have a serious understanding of either the history or the cause. I suspect that 90% of those offering replies were born after 1965. For a prospective contrary to the majority of those replying, see [deleted by Bone]
Contrary’s easy, jojo. More accurate and informative is not.
Good God, Poirot, you’ve done it again! But how?
Welcome to the Straight Dope. Typically we frown on self promotion especially from new posters given the propensity for spam. As a result, I’ve deleted the reference in your post.
If you have views you’d like to share and discuss here, please feel free to engage.
[/moderating]