Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues in Charlottesville removed

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

They were traitors. Get over it.

That's just not true.  Closing the books on the Civil War specifically stated otherwise.  There were good reasons for this.  One is that the North desired a successful reconciliation.  The other was that the North did not wish to create martyrs.  This is why Jefferson Davis and other Confederate politicians were never tried for treason.

Then, as well as now, National Unity is strengthened by going forward on that agreed upon basis.  The reintroduction of the Southern Cross Flag, Lost Cause Revivalism (conducted by Jefferson Davis at the end of his life) and a rash of monuments were not positive developments, but two (2) of those three (3) events were a result of opposition to the Civil Rights Bills of the 1950s and 1960s.  The real harm to real Reconstruction and equality was the bargain made by Wade Hampton and the Republicans to settle the 1876 election by guaranteeing the South "Home Rule" in exchange for Hayes over Tilden as President; that is what ushered in Jim Crow, but it is a separate event from the Civil War.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

They were traitors. Get over it.

That's just not true.  Closing the books on the Civil War specifically stated otherwise.  There were good reasons for this.  One is that the North desired a successful reconciliation.  The other was that the North did not wish to create martyrs.  This is why Jefferson Davis and other Confederate politicians were never tried for treason.

Then, as well as now, National Unity is strengthened by going forward on that agreed upon basis.  The reintroduction of the Southern Cross Flag, Lost Cause Revivalism (conducted by Jefferson Davis at the end of his life) and a rash of monuments were not positive developments, but two (2) of those three (3) events were a result of opposition to the Civil Rights Bills of the 1950s and 1960s.  The real harm to real Reconstruction and equality was the bargain made by Wade Hampton and the Republicans to settle the 1876 election by guaranteeing the South "Home Rule" in exchange for Hayes over Tilden as President; that is what ushered in Jim Crow, but it is a separate event from the Civil War.

Sorry they are still traitors. Get over it.

I note that you are incapable of responding to my arguments with counterarguments as to why they should be considered "traitors".  I suppose I was aiming high.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

The Civil War was different, and Americans' view of Federalism in 1860 was different.  We take it for granted that we are "One Nation, Indivisible" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I'm old enough to hear a recording of the Pledge before "Under God" was added when I was in preschool.)  The idea that a State could leave the Union was NOT a settled question in 1860, and it was hardly considered "treason" for a state to wish to leave the Union.  

If we were not going to, as a nation, take a certain course of action in, say, foreign affairs, we would nowadays say something like, "The United States IS opposed to this measure."  In the first 60 years of the 19th Century, however, we would say this as "The United States ARE opposed to this measure."  This language reflects a very different idea of Union than what we have today.  Indeed, there were some people (albeit very, very few) alive in the 1850s and even in the time of the Civil War that were alive during the time of the Articles of Confederation.  We did NOT have the strong centralized Federal Government we do now.

One reason that neither Jefferson Davis, nor any other Confederate leader, was tried for treason (even though the government contemplated it) was (A) because a conviction was by no means a given and (B) because a conviction would beg the Constitutional issue of whether or not a state had a right to secede.  The latter is the reason that there were no treason charges in the end against Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, John Regan, Judah Benjamin, or any other Confederate leaders.  The other concern was that such trials would impede reconciliation and reconstruction.  Whether Davis and Company deserved to be tried for treason is another matter.  The issue here is that they weren't so tried, and the reason to not do so was a sound one.  Our National Reconstruction, while imperfect, was successful in that it has lasted, and lasted stably.  

People around here seem unwilling to refrain from ripping open old wounds for the greater good when they can hurt someone they don't like.  That's the way of Failed States; it's not the way of stable countries, and it should not be the way of a country that presents itself as a serous nation.  We did not call Confederates "traitors" at the time of the Union's victory in the Civil War, and for the reason that we did not wish to tempt an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling on the Secession Issue.  We are better off as a nation in sticking to this.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you complained about the “patriotism” (or lack thereof) of those who opposed the Vietnam and/or Iraq Wars yet you think the Confederacy was wonderful, you are a hypocrite.

I was a McGovernite peacenik in 1972, and I don't think the Confederacy was wonderful.  It's utter defeat on the battlefield was a good thing, albeit a good thing purchased at a terrible price.

To call those who fought for the Confederacy as "traitors" is highly unfair.

Now if you want to talk about "treason", we can talk about Jefferson Davis's actions as Buchanan's Secretary of War.  Davis's actions in that regard made it possible for the South to be adequately armed for a War of Secession.  THAT is something Davis did while serving in James Buchanan's Cabinet.  That Buchanan likely knew about this and gave his tacit approval to it makes him the worst President of all.  The Civil War was "The FIrst Modern War" with modern weaponry that brought unprecedented horror to Americans, and it was as Secretary of War that Jefferson Davis made that possible. 

But the issue of a state having the right to secede was an open question even after the Civil War ended.  This should not be forgotten.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They were still an Enemy of the United States of America and fought a war against us . We shouldn’t celebrate our enemies no matter what .


Would you be fine with this compromise: Keep their statues up but on their plaques make it clear they killed more Americans troops than any enemy in our history or at the very least take down all the statues that were put up in the 20th century as a meaning of resistance to civil rights

I'd be OK with that.  I wouldn't object to a goodly number of monuments being removed as well, but on a case-by-case basis.

I certainly don't have a problem with yanking up any monuments that were erected during the period of resistance to Civil Rights Legislation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

I stand by what I said.

The US Government had the opportunity to label Jefferson Davis as a traitor.  They could have tried him for treason.  Atty Gen Edwin Stanton explicitly refused to put Davis on trial.

Stanton's reasoning was that if Davis were acquitted, it would explicitly, and in law, justify the Confederate cause.  To quote writer James Swanson: "A Federal Court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturj the whole purpose and result of the war."   If he were convicted, he believe that it would have created a martyr.  Davis, himself, was willing to be martyred, and he believed (probably rightly) that his conviction (which was by no means considered a certainty at the time) and execution would have brought about mercy for the South.  Indeed, there was the fear that a Davis martyrdom would lead the south to rise again.  John Reagan, former Postmaster General for the Confederacy who was restored to citizenship, signed a loyalty oath, and later served as a Senator from Texas, stated: "I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would be that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where 2t was and no try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that [u]hereafter[/u] (emphasis added) secession would mean rebellion."[/i]

The decision made on this issue is very much a "Going Forward" decision.  This has, in fact, been decided long ago.  People who wish to undo this decision are people who conceal their hatred for White Southerners, believing that it's OK to hate them, and completely disregard the labeling of them as traitors in light of the fact that our Nation, itself, opted specifically NOT to press that finding.  As with many such findings after horrible wars (e. g. the soft-pedaling of the role of the Japanese Emperor in World War II and the restoration and continuation of the monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy), this has, in fact, worked out well for America, and for the World (as the reunification of America allowed it to be in a position to bail out Europe in two (2) World Wars).  To call Lee and Jackson (who died in battle) "traitors" when the US Government explicitly refused to attempt to find them so, is wrong; it's a wrong on the character of men long dead, but it's still wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me how people here can go on about this, yet honor anti-Semites if they're from the left.  I challenge you to read "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" edited by Alex Haley.  I read it as a young liberal and the anti-Jewish sentiment of Malcolm X is plain as day.  It's not whataboutism to ask people who are bent out of shape about Lee's statue and Jackson's statue what they think about the Jew Hater (yes, he was that, plain as day) Malcolm X on the campus of Columbia U, a supposed "enlightened" place.  Integrity involves consistency.  On this issue, you certainly have no consistency.

And before the Forum Scumbags (including at least one party that "recommended" your post") resort to their personal attacks, let me make it clear that I am not pro-Confederate, neo-Confederate, or a sympathizer of the Southern point of view on slavery prior to the Civil War.  I would have been an abolitionist had I been alive back then.  But even abolitionists did not consider secession to be "treason".  When Southern states began to secede, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his newspaper on a Front-Page Editorial:  "Let the Erring Sisters Go!".  I don't particularly agree with that, either, and I certainly concur in the result of the Civil War in terms of ending slavery.  But to refer to ordinary Southerners and Confederate soldiers as "traitors" is historically inaccurate and helpful to no one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

I stand by what I said.

The US Government had the opportunity to label Jefferson Davis as a traitor.  They could have tried him for treason.  Atty Gen Edwin Stanton explicitly refused to put Davis on trial.

Stanton's reasoning was that if Davis were acquitted, it would explicitly, and in law, justify the Confederate cause.  To quote writer James Swanson: "A Federal Court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturj the whole purpose and result of the war."   If he were convicted, he believe that it would have created a martyr.  Davis, himself, was willing to be martyred, and he believed (probably rightly) that his conviction (which was by no means considered a certainty at the time) and execution would have brought about mercy for the South.  Indeed, there was the fear that a Davis martyrdom would lead the south to rise again.  John Reagan, former Postmaster General for the Confederacy who was restored to citizenship, signed a loyalty oath, and later served as a Senator from Texas, stated: "I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would be that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where 2t was and no try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that [u]hereafter[/u] (emphasis added) secession would mean rebellion."[/i]

The decision made on this issue is very much a "Going Forward" decision.  This has, in fact, been decided long ago.  People who wish to undo this decision are people who conceal their hatred for White Southerners, believing that it's OK to hate them, and completely disregard the labeling of them as traitors in light of the fact that our Nation, itself, opted specifically NOT to press that finding.  As with many such findings after horrible wars (e. g. the soft-pedaling of the role of the Japanese Emperor in World War II and the restoration and continuation of the monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy), this has, in fact, worked out well for America, and for the World (as the reunification of America allowed it to be in a position to bail out Europe in two (2) World Wars).  To call Lee and Jackson (who died in battle) "traitors" when the US Government explicitly refused to attempt to find them so, is wrong; it's a wrong on the character of men long dead, but it's still wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me how people here can go on about this, yet honor anti-Semites if they're from the left.  I challenge you to read "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" edited by Alex Haley.  I read it as a young liberal and the anti-Jewish sentiment of Malcolm X is plain as day.  It's not whataboutism to ask people who are bent out of shape about Lee's statue and Jackson's statue what they think about the Jew Hater (yes, he was that, plain as day) Malcolm X on the campus of Columbia U, a supposed "enlightened" place.  Integrity involves consistency.  On this issue, you certainly have no consistency.

And before the Forum Scumbags (including at least one party that "recommended" your post") resort to their personal attacks, let me make it clear that I am not pro-Confederate, neo-Confederate, or a sympathizer of the Southern point of view on slavery prior to the Civil War.  I would have been an abolitionist had I been alive back then.  But even abolitionists did not consider secession to be "treason".  When Southern states began to secede, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his newspaper on a Front-Page Editorial:  "Let the Erring Sisters Go!".  I don't particularly agree with that, either, and I certainly concur in the result of the Civil War in terms of ending slavery.  But to refer to ordinary Southerners and Confederate soldiers as "traitors" is historically inaccurate and helpful to no one.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson are not the regular southerner though. They actively led the Confederate Military against the US military meaning they led an enemy army against our military and we should not celebrate that. They also in doing so broke the oath they took to the US military so why should we honor them.

Anyway on this , I believe we should tear down the statue of any person who led an army against the United States of America or were our enemies. So yeah the Marx statue in Seattle should be taken down for sure and be replaced with a statue of a Cold War US president. Similarly CSA statues should be replaced by statues of Union Generals or Lincoln.

Statues are meant to celebrate people and are just not a symbol of history

I certainly agree with the last line.

The view of the relationship between the individual states and the Federal Government was fundamentally different in 1860 than it is now.  In 1860 it was not a consensus view in the NORTH (let alone the South) that secession was treason, or even forbidden.  That's a fact, and it's something that people here conveniently refuse to acknowledge.