That "invading army" was Lee's own nation's army, no matter how spuriously you wish to phrase the argument. And the nation that survived him should not be endorsing his treason. And, oh, by the way, how is Lee's statue any less historical if it's placed in a history museum?
They'll all melt down their guns into plowshares and fill the fields with freshly planted watermelons
Depends on which group. Someone like you probably will sleep better at night. Me? I get new mattresses for better sleep. Once it comes down I will hit @Tiger in NC up or something.
Think about that statement for a second, and try to put yourselves in a time period when many Americans (like Lee) considered loyalty to one's state to be more important than loyalty to the Union. Think about the name, United States of America. The original concept was of a group of states acting together as a nation, but determining their own independent courses. Modern communications and transportation have blurred that concept, but in 1861, it was very much alive. "Invasion" is exactly how Lee saw it, and was the reason he declined command of that army in the first place.
Also the right of a state to secede was in debate. As recently as the 1850's several northern states not only believed in the right but threatened to. Vermont and I believe Maine or New Hampshire. Only Lincoln's iron will and skill held the union together. A significant fraction of northerners were for letting the south go. So yes Lincoln's army could justifiably be called an invading army.
They don't call it the war of northern aggression for nothing. Yes slavery was a terrible stain on this country. But getting rid of a few statues isn't changing what happened, and it isn't going to miraculously put the great great grandchildren of former slaves in any better position. It's money wasted that could have as I said before gone to schools, bought new textbooks. This whole thing is as ridiculous as changing the name of the Washington Redskins.