There has been much debate over the last few years about whether statues portraying confederate leaders should remain standing in public places. Proponents for the removal of the statues argue that the statues glorify racism and are therefore inappropriate for modern society. Apart from this general thesis, though, perhaps the best way to offer the case for removal is to respond to the most common anti-removal arguments. **“Removing historic statues is an attempt to erase American history.”** Removing statues is a far cry from erasing history. Most statues were not created for the purpose of preserving history - historians agree that, given that most Confederate statues were erected in the early 1900s and the 1950s/1960s - both periods of major civil rights movements, the intention was to send a message of support for white supremacy. Statues/monuments in general serve the very specific purpose of honoring a person deemed to be worthy of immortalization via stone. This is why there are a plethora of monuments of Jesus or Buddha, but statues depicting “the devil” are much more controversial. Schools will continue to teach American history, the removal of statues has no impact on this. In fact, many proponents of removing the statues also advocate for a more comprehensive and accurate coverage of these events in schools. And, who of us actually learned about Robert E. Lee simply from looking at a life-size replica of him? **“People have a right to their own opinions, even if it’s not mainstream, and to express those views however they want.”** This is true. No-one can stop you from building a monument on your private property (hence a larger than life statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate general and KKK Grand Wizard, that is visible from the highway in Nashville but is unable to be removed). However, it is whether they should be constructed on public/government property that is contested. The Confederacy represents oppressive and discriminatory values that are (or should be) counter to the ideals of our current government, and therefore would be inappropriate to stand in front of capitol buildings and the like. It is easily agreed that a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag would be unacceptable. The fact that it is not so with statues such as the one of Robert E. Lee outside the U.S. Capitol (recently removed but heavily contested) indicates a difference in opinion not about whether or not history should be preserved in that way but rather about whether that history is something we are proud of or not. **“They weren’t all bad, they did some good things too.”** Surely Confederate soldiers had some redeeming qualities, even Nathan Bedford Forrest ended up speaking out against racism near the end of his life. But they are primarily known for being associated with the Confederacy. One would not erect a statue of a notorious murderer simply because he also donated to charity. Moreover, there are so many people who have done important, good work, so if we can only choose a few to make life-size replicas of, it would seem to make sense to choose those who aren’t also affiliated with the Confederacy. As far as the argument that the Confederacy stood for more than slavery, that it’s simply about southern heritage and the secession was about states’ rights in general, it is worth noting that the Confederacy explicitly associated itself with the interest of preserving slavery. Most notably, the Mississippi declaration of secession states “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world”. This interest was even pursued at the expense of the states’ rights that they allegedly fought for - South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, did so following rulings in Northern states which prohibited state officials from complying with the federal fugitive laws. In the Confederate constitution, it is written that “In all such territory the institution of n***o slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government”. And given that the Confederacy lasted but five years, it could hardly be considered a “heritage” outside of the context of slavery. This is not a comprehensive argument for the removal of Confederate statues, and there is a separate debate over whether they should be destroyed or preserved in museums, but the bottom line is that these statues primarily serve to glorify a painful history, signals toleration of discrimination, and do not/should not represent the present and future that we are trying to create, and therefore should be removed from public property. https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/ https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future https://www.procon.org/headlines/historic-statue-removal-top-3-pros-cons/

I'm not in favour or against this as such but I find it weird to have loads of flags and statues for the losing side everywhere in America. The fact that the confederate states all rejoined the Union makes it strange to me that they still want the statues of the guys who lead them to losing the war? I live in the UK and after our civil war we don't tend to keep reliving it again and again through flags or statues.