Consider states' history when debating statues

I have to admit I'm somewhat torn over the issue of removing Confederate statues: they are public art and this is a part of our history. However, if history is a reason to keep these statues, then the history of the statues must be equally taken into account.

At the most benign, the statues were erected to promote the romanticized "Lost Cause" narrative of the postwar south which held that the primary reason for southern rebellion was high-minded constitutional principles ("States' Rights," an issue not really brought up prior to the war except in relation to slavery.) A more malignant view of the statues is tied to the rise of Jim Crow and the intent to remind African-Americans of "their place" with ever-present reminders of slavery in every town square.

It's been said that the north won the war but the south won the peace. This must be true because I don't think England has any statues to Oliver Cromwell or to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. Treason is rarely so romantically memorialized.

This is a prime learning opportunity to understand the war and it's ongoing aftermath.

Mary Hunter

Carpentersville