Now the question in New Orleans and other cities is; is there good reason to keep the monuments up where they are. I believe not only are there many good reasons to keep them but they trump any reasons to remove them. 1) All 3 men (Davis, Lee & Beauregard) were American heros before and after the war. Their prewar deeds are well known. After the war Lee, who never owned a slave, lead the south from defeat to reconciliation. He was a leader in accepting the newly freed slave into society. The story of him going to kneel with an African in church is well known. His outstanding character was acknowledged by all union and confed. He is perhaps after Lincoln the greatest American of the era. Beauregard like Lee led LA to reconcile. He also was the head of the NO Sewerage & Waterboard when it created the drainage system. He electrified the streetcars. He is without a doubt the greatest Louisianan of the era. Davis action after the war were less exemplary. However his great service to the country as senator, Sec of War and soldier deserves honor. All 3 are much more than their Civil War legacy. Even in rebellion and defeat the are examples of courage and honor. They are people ALL of us black, brown white or whatever would do well to emulate. To tear down their statues is an act of small minds and hearts. It is a destructive of history and denial of honor. Finally even with agitation from Little Moon and his eastern liberal backers most African Americans aren't in favor of removing the statues. I have no problem removing the Liberty monument. It represents everything thing the others are purported to be.
This is why Lee's monument should stay. Read it @Rex and learn something. http://thehayride.com/2015/06/robert-e-lee-was-a-far-far-better-man-than-mitch-landrieu/
I mean if the justification to remove them is slaves, why not just tear down America while you are at it? Oh wait, that IS the agenda.....
Hell, look at West Virginia. They broke away from Virginia in the middle of the war because they disagreed with slavery. Maine split off from Massachusetts earlier in similar fashion, but over different issues. Self-determination among the states defined the first century of American history.
@Winston1 Actually, Lee did own slaves. He inherited them as part of the Custis plantation in Arlington when his father-in-law died. He was never a farmer, though, leaving that to other family members. He was a career soldier. He did eventually free his slaves, and did think slavery was a vile institution, but technically, he did own some.
Well, guess what.... all three statues are of those men in combat uniforms worn in war against this country. As I said earlier, they were erected as a "fuck you" to the rest of the country, and it's entirely inappropriate to perpetuate that traitorous sentiment. It takes a small mind to want them to remain.
I'm supposed to be swayed by some biased hack who writes for something called "The Hayride"? Yeah, like that's going to happen. Let's consider just one of your author's statements: "He was not a great believer in the Confederate cause, but he could not bring himself to fight against his family, neighbors and friends…" Seriously? That abandonment of ethics for the sake of familial selfishness is supposed to be applauded? Do we applaud parents who know their children have committed crimes but fail to turn them in? I don't think so. And here's a critical fact your author fails to understand: it's not Robert E. Lee the city wants to tear down... it's a STATUE depicting Robert E. Lee in full uniform... at war with the USA to perpetuate slavery. If the erectors of the statue had truly wanted to honor the civilian reconciliator, the opponent of slavery, the blah blah whitewashed excuse blah blah blah, they would have depicted the man in CIVILIAN garb, not in battle attire. Case closed and won.