I think people claiming it glorifies the confederacy are mistaken. Just because it involves a man who fought in the confederacy (not necessarily supported it) doesn't mean it celebrates that, because the commissioner of the statue (Paul Goodloe McIntire) didn't even seem to support the confederacy when it was built. As far as we know, it serves no other purpose than as a reminder of the past, along with the other statues funded by McIntire.Skip wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:58 pm Of course it's history, and that is why it excites emotion: that was its function in the first place. When Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Saddam Hussein had a statue erected to his own glory, displayed in a prominent position, the idea was to inspire pride in his followers and fear in his enemies. When he lost his power, he lost his right to self-glorification.
I think the Confederacy did, too. Glorifying leaders who chose the losing side is a gesture of defiance on the part of the losers. The winners have been more than patient - they have been downright indulgent - in allowing this to continue as long as it has.
There's a big difference to statues built from dictatorship, for dictatorship, when the manpower to get that done often involves slavery itself, and has a clear intention of being built for the purpose you state. The Charlottesville memorial was built long after Lee died, he wasn't even aware that such a thing existed.
I hear what you're saying about the principle of forcing taxpayers to maintain a statue they don't like - whatever fraction they end up paying to maintain a statue - the problem is the reason they don't like it is based on omitted, skewed and misinformation.