Monuments

Having a monument is something people do.

It can provide a focal point in a public place, it gives the birds a place to hang out and they may be somewhat instructive about the past.

Now they don't come to life and do anything when we're not looking and what monuments people have in their town are pretty much their own business.

Now, of course it might also serve as a tourist attraction or a thing which draws negative attention, but unless its a Federal monument whoever has jurisdiction can decide to put one up or take one down.

Now growing up I was a pretty big Civil War buff and to a large extent the Southern Generals had a lot more flair than the Northern ones.

Grant was sort of a bulldog who was willing to sacrifice a lot of soldiers, although he was victorious.

Sherman's march to the sea was pretty brutal.

Sheridan had some flair as I remember but the Southern guys came across as heroes who fought against big odds and almost won.

Robert E. Lee was a noble General who while sacrificing Pickett's division at Gettysburg won a lot of victories against superior forces.

Stonewall was bold and decisive until he was killed accidentally by his own men.

However, they were traitors to the United States and any lesson about them should be about how you shouldn't lead a rebellion against the country you were born in, at least in most cases.

We treated them pretty graciously after the war if they survived and they got somewhat repatriated, but having a monument to one of them seems a bit like celebrating Benedict Arnold.  I think there is a monument to the pre-traitor Arnold in New York but not sure it says it is him.

If the people who live there wanted to take it down, its where they live after all.

They get to do it.