Pelosi, Biden say there is a difference between removing Confederate leaders, past presidents

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post.  

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought.  

Fair on Benedict Arnold.  I probably should have left out the "deplorable causes" part, and just said "fought against the United States" in general.

If Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese want to celebrate Rommel, Yamamoto and Ho Chi Minh, good for them.  The largest city in Vietnam is named after the guy after all.  Here in the United States, we aren't going to build statues to men who fought against our country and did their utmost to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Even if, in the case of Rommel, there are a lot of folks who think he was low-key a good guy on the wrong side.  In the same way, we here in America should not celebrate men like Jackson, Lee, or Davis, who declared war on our country and led an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American men with the goal of permanently breaking the country in two and perpetuating chattel slavery forever.

I'd actually compare Rommel pretty closely with Lee.  Both are men who were loyal servants to the leaders of their regime, led their armies to a lot of decisive and brilliant victories, seemed remarkably incurious, at best, about the atrociously amoral regime they were defending, and had their reputations refurbished after the war.  In both cases, their former enemies had political reasons to acquiesce to the rehabilitiation -- the lionizing of Lee was a symbolic victory northerners were willing to give away as a bargaining chip during reconstruction, and "Rommel and his troops were alright blokes" was key to the allied justification for re-arming ex-Nazi West Germany during the Cold War.

George Washington fought against Great Britain and tried to kill as many British soldiers as possible.  Yet there's a statue of him in Trafalgar Square in London.  Just a thought.

As for Rommel, one might ask what would satisfy you as showing sufficient concern about the Nazi regime on his part.  After all, the Third Reich was a dictatorship.  It's not like even the July 20th plotters ran out into the streets shouting "Hitler is evil!" (and Rommel may have been involved in that plot to some extent).

If you want a German officer who did more than Rommel, look no further than Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, who regularly (and sometimes successfully) opposed Germany's awful treatment of prisoners, conspired to remove Hitler, and regularly passed information to Allied intelligence. He was also the head of German Military Intelligence from 1935 until the Gestapo and SS finally caught up with him in early 1944.

My point wasn't that Rommel did the most of anyone, it was that if you're going to be critical of him for supposedly not showing enough concern about the nature of Nazism, that raises the question of what would have been "satisfactory" for him to have done.  Moreover, it seems to me that someone in that situation could have realized that Hitler and his regime were horrible but still concluded that they had a duty to fight for their country. 

I wasn't trying to criticize your mention of Rommel, or be particularly critical of him. I just think that Canaris did a lot more good, while Rommel tends to get a lot of focus as "the good WWII German general" and its good to remember that he wasn't the only high-ranking German opposed to Hitler (while still believing in Germany as a cause worth fighting for).

[Alben Barkley]

There’s my party leaders! (Current highest ranking Dem and soon-to-be highest ranking Dem.)

Anyone who can’t see the difference it seems to me is being obtuse: Founders and leaders of the United States vs. people who actively rebelled and committed treason against the United States in an attempt to separate from it to maintain a slave society. Just because not everyone in the former group was perfect does not change the basic fact that they were critical figures in establishing the America we have today, while the Confederates actively fought against and sought to undermine that. If you ask me, those who have such contempt for the America we have today that they believe it’s proper to destroy the legacies of the likes of Washington and Lincoln have ironically far more in common with those anti-American Confederates than they realize.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

- Of course the United States of America will look at this from a US standpoint and glorify the people who seceded from Great Britain, and denounce the people who seceded from the Union. That should not be controversial too.

I don't think independence of the colonies was a "secession" like the southern states in 1860-61. The colonies in the 1770s were governed by the British crown, but they weren't really a part of Britain in the sense the South was part the United States. Asserting the American colonies and the South had similar political status has always been one of the key features of the Lost Cause.

Well you're right but the Colonies still owed allegiance to the British Crown, no?
I think I should not have used the word "seceded" for the first thing, but I hope you got my point.
[Even though I presume that the Founding Fathers' actions are considered justified and maybe even admired in the eyes of a lot of Britons today, for reasons that have to do with point #3 (moral justification)]