As I have been watching and reading about the debate over Confederate statues, I have been thinking about history and political correctness. I understand that part of the population does not want these statues on public land as they feel that they represent racism and white supremacy . And, they are a painful reminder of the past. Another group of people see them as part of their heritage. They don't want these statues removed as they are a part of their history and honor the past. I think that each group has valid arguements. However, what should be done about the statutes? Well, I think that looking at the life of Robert E. Lee should be part of the debate.
Robert E. Lee was a citizen of the United States for most of his life, except for the years that he was part of the Confederacy. He served in the US military and was the head of the military academy in Annapolis, MD.
When the Civil War started, the first person that President Abraham Lincoln asked to be the head of US military was Lee. Now, that is a very interesting fact in Civil War history. Lincoln asked a man who owned slaves to lead the Union Army. Why? Lee was very experienced and respected military man and leader. This can be seen at the end of the Civil War by the way General Ulysses S. Grant treated Lee at the surrender at Appomattox Court House. Grant treated Lee with respect. History is complex. Many people don't know that Lincoln was racist and believed in white supremacy. There are quotes by him that prove this. Yet today, he called the "Great Emancipator".
Another interesting fact about Lee was his view about Confederate memorial monuments. When he was asked if he thought that they should be made, he said "no". Why? Lee said that he thought they would be too decisive for the US. So, Robert E. Lee would have most likely agreed with the with the people today that are saying that the statues should be removed from public land. And, he most likely would not liked the fact that people made statues of him. However, people did make the statutes and the memorials for Lee, other Confederate leaders and the soldiers. And, many are now considered historical. So, what do we do about them?
I thinking about this topic, I thought about one of my great, great grandfathers. He was a Union soldier. He was a member of an infantry group from Iowa. His unit was involved in the siege of Atlanta and fought in the Battle of Peach Tree Creek. He was shot in the head, but survived. I've thought about how I would have viewed him if he had been a Confederate soldier. Would I tell people about him like do today? I don't know. What if his name or his infantry unit was on a monument? Would I be upset if people wanted to moved to private land? Yes and no. If moving it to private land means that it would be preserved, then that would be good. And, yet if it were moved it could then be ignored and forgotten by many.
And, that is the point that bothers me the most about this debate: if all these statues and monuments are moved, is it so that they will ignored and forgotten? Yes, they are painful reminders of the past. However, reminders are useful as they tell us what went wrong and how not to repeat it. Political correctness is right in the way it points out that certain words, practices and objects are painful to other people. However, to simply do away with them all so nobody feels hurt by them does not do away with the problem. If people forget, they may end up with the same problem as the warning signs of the problem are forgot as well. A statue of Robert E. Lee is painful to certain groups of people, but seeing it is a reminder of what should not be done now and in the future.
Yes, a lot the Confederate statues and monuments should be moved, but not all of them. We still need some of them on public land to be a reminder. Why? Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it in the future. And, that is something we should never forget.
