The father and grandfather of my father's mother—she's shown here—both had unmarked graves until the federal government provided them with Confederate tombstones in the 1930s.


An Argument For Why Dallas’ Lee Park Statue Should Stay Where It Is

Because—besides setting a really bad precedent—demeaning Lee demeans the souls he served with as well.

I hope we all agree upfront that slavery was an abomination—America’s “birth defect,” as Condoleezza Rice has put it. But that doesn’t mean the current campaign to remove the Robert E. Lee Memorial statue in Dallas’ Lee Park has any justification. It doesn’t. The Confederate general was hailed universally as an honorable if flawed gentleman for at least 150 years, and his memorial—and his memory—don’t deserve these hysterical, short-sighted attacks. Because, in my opinion, demeaning Lee also demeans the memory of the souls he served with during the tragedy that was the Civil War. Like many North Texans, my forebears were among them.

The woman in the photo above, my father’s mother, grew up dirt-poor in southwestern Arkansas. She and her husband were sharecroppers, the “lowest” of the white people. After my grandfather died at age 42, she married another man who, according to court records in Columbia County, “cursed and abused her” and her three young children and “unmercifully” whipped the children, including my dad. A petition she brought against this man said she had “worked in the field and helped to raise” six bales of cotton, and therefore was entitled to one-half of the proceeds from the cotton sale as part of her settlement.

My grandmother’s father, “D.C.R.,” or Cobe, was 17 in 1861, when, for whatever reason, he joined the Confederate army. His father, Lewis, who was 52, also joined the army that year. They both served in Company C of the 20th Arkansas Infantry until the war ended in 1865. Later, the family received some kind of assistance from the Freedman’s Bureau, which was set up to help freed slaves as well as poor whites. In the 1930s, the U.S. War Department authorized Confederate headstones bearing the inscription of the Confederate Cross of Honor in a small circle on the stone’s front face. So, my grandmother’s brother applied for two headstones to be sent to the Mount Moriah Cemetary in Nevada County, Arkansas. There, they were placed atop the unmarked graves of Cobe and his father.

Proponents of removing historical monuments like the Lee Park statue don’t like to call such acts revising or rewriting history. But, that’s what they are—political correctness, basically, run amok. And, giving in to their “demands” would set a really bad precedent. I’m sure some Mexican-Americans don’t much like what the Alamo stands for, so why let it stand unmolested? Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, so why should the Washington Monument and Monticello escape? Many consider Vietnam to have been an immoral war—young Vietnamese were napalmed, remember—so why not get after the Vietnam Veterans Memorial next. If you think these examples are too outrageous to be considered, think again.

As for the Lee statue, which was dedicated by President Franklin Roosevelt here in 1936, maybe the current detractors could learn from the sober, measured words of another president, who advocated in the late 1890s for federal recognition of Confederate and Union soldiers alike. “Every soldier’s grave made during our unfortunate Civil War is a tribute to American valor,” William McKinley said. “And while, when those graves were made, we differed widely about the future of this government, those differences were long ago settled by the arbitrament of arms … What a glorious future awaits us if united, wisely, and bravely we face the new problems now pressing upon us, determined to solve them for right and humanity.”


Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...









View All

View All


  • EricCeleste
  • bmslaw

    “Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, so why should the Washington Monument and Monticello escape?” Well, for one thing, Washington and Jefferson fought to create and preserve the UNITED States of America, while Lee fought to destroy the UNITED States of America. Taking up arms (and leading a rebellion) against one’s own country is treason, not honor or valor. If you have ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance, you pledged your allegiance to the flag of the Union, and to the republic for which it stands–ONE nation, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice FOR ALL. The Confederates, led by Lee, fought against the United States, the one nation, the indivisible nation, killing their fellow citizens for the right to enslave others, depriving them of liberty and justice.

    And,by the way, dedicating the Lee Statue was perhaps the only act of Roosevelt that today’s defenders of the statue would countenance. I suspect that these are the same people who have vilified FDR as a socialist, communist, or Satan ever since he led the nation out of the Great Depression.

    • Nah, let them tear it down. While we are at it, we’ll tear down all the MLK statues (adulterer), Malcolm X (burglar), Nat Turner (murder), Harriet Tubman (theft), and I’m sure anyone else we can think of.

      Or maybe, you know, we can let history be history, because the real lesson they are sending is “never let people with different politics win, or they will try to erase even the fact that you opposed them, because they are just as awful in victory as in defeat.”

      • bmslaw

        “Different politics”? Treason is hardly different politics.

        • It was treason when Nat Turner led a slave rebellion. Treason is just an extension of a difference in politics.

          • bmslaw

            Nat Turner was considered to be “property”, not a person, much less a citizen. “Property” cannot commit a crime. By the way, you need a new dictionary–your definition of treason is incorrect.

          • Turner was convicted of insurrection and executed for it, which makes it seem like that’s a difference without a difference.

        • PeterTx52

          sorry but the accusation of treason is a recent phenomena. the Confederates believed that the Constitution allowed for secession. In that day and age states were considered equal to the federal government. the sad thing is that liberals for the past century have been working overtime to kill federalism and implement a strong central government

          • bmslaw

            The acts of secession, and armed attack on United States armed forces were considered to be treason when they occurred, and ever since as well–perhaps not by you, but by the lawful U.S. Government, as well as a large majority of the non-Southern population. Whether the Confederates believed that their secession was lawful or not does not lessen its traitorous nature. The acts of the Founding Fathers a century or so earlier were equally traitorous, at least in the eyes of their lawful government in Great Britain, and would no doubt have been dealt with as such had Great Britain won, but they didn’t, and our traitorous leaders became our revered Founding Fathers because they won the war. Had the Confederacy won their war, they no doubt would be revered and exalted–but they lost, and they don’t get to be revered and exalted. That is how history works.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            “The acts of secession…”

            Addressed above ↑

            “…and armed attack on United States armed forces…”

            …who unlawfully occupied an unfinished fort lying in the waters of Charleston harbor within the jurisdictional boundaries of the newly seceded southern state of South Carolina.

            “…were considered to be treason when they occurred…”

            But not where it counts: in the then-existing federal court system (see above ↑ ).

        • disqus_rhwWcBNiHa

          The Southern states were assured by the New England states that secession was Constitutional. They had planned to secede four times before the Southern states did.

        • Dean Anderson

          Many of the generals studied together at West Point.Lee had no excessive loyalty to the south and slavery,could have chosen to side with the north and his friends.The determining factor was the invasion of Virginia by union troops.After all,Lee was a patriot for the state of Virginia-first.Newspapers from the period show that the south was invaded within weeks of their efforts to have export /import of materials and products directly with Europe,cutting out the northern power brokers.The south had the materials but the north held manufacturing plants.I detest the idea of slavery,but the war was all about money,just like today.The victors demonize the losers.The north benefited from slave labor immensely but appeared to wash their hands of it.Don’t turn over that stone because you wouldn’t like to know how they (as democrats) continue to control the masses of the uneducated with the same tactics used to keep the slaves in line and producing for them before that war.

        • Juanito Ibañez

          The act of secession was not “treason,” bmslaw — so sayeth then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase.

          Ergo; your premise fails at its outset.

      • JamieT

        There is no history. There is no past. There is no future. There is only the present, the birthright solely of power and of nothing and no one else. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

        Yours, Hunter and Phelps, are the voices of the sentimentalist idolator, the sniveling sort that would protest the recent holy purification of Palmyra. Get woke. There is no god but power, and opportunity is his prophet.

        Besides, hey, as always in Dallas there will be money to be made tearing things down and money to be made putting something else up in its place. Like ants perpetually digging out after a rain, it’s all we are, and it’s all we do. History is just a synonym for “needs updating”.

        • Just for the record, I love rats, and hate big breasts. Just can’t stand those breasts. Especially big soft ones.

          • JamieT

            There is no record, and all breasts are the same size. They’ve always all been the same size, and we’ve always accepted them all the way they have always been. And no one knows what rats are.

          • Happy Bennett

            You are not aware of supernumerary nipples often mistaken for skin tags or moles?

          • JamieT

            Only Audreyclaw believes she has supernumerary nipples often mistaken for skin tags or moles, but she will soon be driving her Range Rover to a reeducation camp where she will be cleansed of this delusion.

            All other breasts including hers are of equal, average, universally acceptable size, without perfection or blemish. It has always been this way.

      • Linda parsel

        Then right next to Lee put up a statue to Tubman??

    • PeterTx52

      “while Lee fought to destroy the UNITED States of America. ” nope he sought to protect his native state Virginia from invasion.
      as for the pledge of allegiance he did not exist before or during the Civil War

      • bmslaw

        Perhaps he did both, but clearly one of those was unlawful. And as for the pledge, I am fully aware of when it was adopted–my point was that, when WE say it, WE are affirming our nation’s indivisibility, clearly rejecting the idea that secession is permissible. It is not permissible now, just as it was not permissible then.

        • Stephanie G119

          Shh. Don’t tell the snowflakes in California…

      • Brian Cleveland
    • Preston Furlow

      Washington and Jefferson DID support bearing arms against THEIR government, too. That government was called Great Britain. If you celebrate July 4th while bemoaning Confederate as traitors, happy hypocrisy to you.
      ‘ Any people, anywhere, who are so inclined and have the power, have the right to shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable right, a sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world’s- Abraham Lincoln in his speech to the US House of Representatives January 12, 1848.
      You were saying?

  • Brenda Marks

    So far, nobody has said why this statue was placed in Oak Lawn Park in 1936 and the park renamed for a traitor, nor at the expense and behest of whom this was done That FDR dedicated it most likely was the result of pure politics, not history.

    • Brian Cleveland

      Brenda, the notion that Confederates were traitors is a recent soundbyte invented on social media by folks who know next to nothing about the Civil War. Lee felt he was defending his home in a time much different than ours. These monuments were meant to honor the dead as Confederate veterans are considered, by Federal law, to be veterans of the United States.

      • Happy Bennett

        Lee was highly regarded in the post war period especially for his founding of Washington and Lee University. His wife was a relative of Martha Washington and had her Constitutional property rights abused when the union army stole her land at Arlington, the current site of Arlington National Cemetery.

        • Mavdog

          Lee did not “found” Washington and Lee, that school was first established in the 18th century, President Washington gave it a large contribution for which it was named after him. Lee served as President for 5 years, from 1865 until his death in 1870, after which they added his name.

          The story of Arlington National Cemetery is unusual, Martha Washington Lee never had fee title to the property but rather had a Life Estate. Martha Lee could not sell the land. However, the US government bought it under a tax sale for due taxes that, because of the war and the Lee family’s relocation, were not paid. Custis Lee, Martha’s son and the heir, sued the US government for illegal taking and won his case, subsequently he sold the property to the government.

          • Happy Bennett

            It would be more proper to say that the US government levied taxes on Martha Lee’s estate and then demanded that she pay the taxes “in person” rather than have one of her male relatives in the township do it on her behalf. This was a fraudulent and illegal ruse to confiscate her estate. In another “double cross” the federal government (union) reversed itself on a promise to convert the estate to farm land for freed slaves, and instead housed Union Army officers there.

    • disqus_rhwWcBNiHa

      …because Americans would never build a monument just to honor their war dead….right?

      • John Franklin Guild

        I was under the impression that Lee survived….

    • Happy Bennett

      I thought that you embraced everything that was FDR.

    • Preston Furlow

      ‘Surrender means that the history of this historic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by northern schoolteachers, will learn from northern school books their version of the war, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.’ – General Patrick Cleburne, CSA
      Looking at the anti-monument posts, he was prophetic in his prediction.

    • Juanito Ibañez

      Brenda Marks wrote:

      “So far, nobody has said why this statue was placed in Oak Lawn Park in 1936 and the park renamed for a traitor, nor at the expense and behest of whom this was done.”

      First off, Brenda: after the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ ended, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, stated secession was not treason, so the Confederacy’s top general, Robert E. Lee, cannot be a “traitor.”


      Robert E. Lee Memorial — Lee Park, Dallas TX

      The dedication plaque on the statue’s base.

      BTW: since it cost more than $50,000 in 1903 to create this statue, its value today is $1,436,477 in 2017 dollars.

  • Jon Bryan

    This is an old argument that has no legs to stand on. What it basically boils down to is this. No one will ever forget the enslavement of blacks. No one will ever forget Lee. Allowing monuments depicting likenesses of Confederate Civil war “heros” in galant and regal poses to remain on public property engenders a false nostalgia of the past and is a thumbing of the nose to those who gave their lives for the Civil Rights movement. Here I quote New Orleans’ Mayor Landrieu on the removal of their monuments:
    “Now with the shocking words still ringing in your ears, I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip of the false narrative of our history that I think weakens us and make a straight a wrong turn we made many years ago so we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and more perfect Union.”
    Dallas should follow New Orleans’ lead. Not only should we remove our Confederate monuments… we should replace them with monuments honoring the heroes who fought for civil rights.

    • Audreyclaw

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa330d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash330TopJustGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa330l..,..

    • Brian Cleveland

      Dallas should follow New Orleans lead? Yeah, I was just there, used to live there. It’s a disaster. You do know the mayor used the monuments to divert attention from some serious issues including a huge murder problem. Crime, gangs, drugs, education…are you saying let’s make Dallas just as bad? Ah, social justice, seems to have erased poverty, from Flint to New Orleans!

      • Jon Bryan

        I did not state that Dallas should become New Orleans. Your response is totally off topic. Focus on the subject of this article and my response, then make an intelligent and relevant retort.

        • Happy Bennett

          I dunno Brian actually used to live there, which gives him greater credibility than you As for professional politician and panderer Landrieu brother of former Senator Mary and son of former mayor “Moon” (1970-1978) not sure how all this “Landrieuness” has created a “straighter path towards a better city”

  • Buddy Apple

    Dallas should follow the lead of other cities and institutions who have placed their historic sites tied to the Civil War in context – add signage, add additional markers or monuments, connect the park to other nearby historic sites. This preserves the site as an educational opportunity while presenting the full history. Lee Park is historic and could easily function as much as an outdoor museum as a park.

    • GlennHunter

      Great idea, Buddy Apple. Much more sensible than what the Morning News is advocating.

  • Brian Cleveland
  • Brian Cleveland

    Jim, while confusing Confederates with Nazis has become a social media hit with those who don’t have the time to study our history, you are saying let’s substitute one myth for another. I don’t have the time here to explain the difference between Nazi genocide and the honoring of our Texas ancestors who felt they were defending their homeland, but most Confederate monuments were commissioned by remembrance groups like the daughters of the Confederacy to remember the fallen who by Law are considered US veterans. Nowhere on any of these statues is the slightest hint of racial hatred. Lincoln said if he could win the war and not free a single slave he would, which would make him as much a “nazi” as anyone.

  • disqus_rhwWcBNiHa

    So the United States were Nazis too. There was slavery in the U.S. during and after the war. The 13 original colonies were Nazis for all of them had slavery. I could go on.

  • rf7777

    Wow! White supremacy apologetics…yawn. Everyone that fought for the Confederacy fought for one thing and one thing only…preserving slavery. Have someone introduce you to a family of color and then go have a family picnic with them… in that public Dallas park… right underneath that larger than life memorial to Robert E. Lee. Explain your great heritage to their kids.

    • Marcie Batten

      Actually I have observed “families of color” (what a quaint arm’s length insulting label -BTW) and other diverse groups enjoying Lee Park all the time. I’m sure it gives you a thrill to try to pit people against each other, but it isn’t working.

    • Brian Cleveland

      total nonsense, go back to school. I’ll pay for your books. you can’t learn history on social media!

  • rf7777

    “She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”

    • BobWhitfield

      That supposed “quote’ is one of the many fake ones. Always go to the original source, not some online “reprint”. The actual photograph of the Texas Secession declaration shows that it mentions slavery only once, and in passing, as in “our sister slave-holding states”. Only one other state mentions it in its statement. Always look at the photos of the documents, not wikipedia. Beside, those secession declarations are meaningless, since secession was not the cause of that war. Lincoln’s illegal invasion of the CSA was what started it, beginning with his violation of several armistices in Charleston Harbor in April 1861. Read “Truth Of The War Conspiracy” by H W Johnstone (free ebook here: ) and “Truths Of History” by Mildred Rutherford (free ebook:;view=1up;seq=4 )

      • Juanito Ibañez

        “That supposed ‘quote’ is one of the many fake ones.”

        Actually, Bob; his quote is genuine.

        From the Texas State Library:

        DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
        A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

    • Juanito Ibañez

      Disengenous positing there, rf.

      Here’s the ACTUAL Secession Ordinance:

      AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States united under the Compact styled “the Constitution of the United States of America.”

      WHEREAS, The Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens, and

      WHEREAS, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and,

      WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression; THEREFORE,

      SECTION 1. We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled “The Constitution of the United States of America,” be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof.

      SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for their ratification or rejection, by the qualified voters, on the 23rd day of February, 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2d day of March, A.D. 1861.

      PROVIDED, that in the Representative District of El Paso said election may be held on the 18th day of February, 1861.

      Done by the people of the State of Texas, in convention assembled, at Austin, this 1st day of February, A.D. 1861.

      Ratified 23 Feb 1861 by a vote of 46,153 for and 14,747 against.

      Quite a bit of difference; isn’t it?

  • Happy Bennett

    Why stop here? Perhaps we should stop using words with Latin roots because the rotten old Romans were oppressive slave holders. We should definitely stop patronizing Campisis’ Egyptian Restaurant near SMU because those bad old Egyptians were slave holders from biblical times. And, decidedly, all things Bonaparte should be “cleansed” from the history books and fiction (including “War and Peace”-necessary collateral damage) because Napoleon re-introduced slavery to the Caribbean in the early 1800s. Stalin had his gulags too as well as the old Czars who were late to the “free the serf” party. See how that works? (Why not just trust people’s intelligence and leave the historical statues alone?) I really don’t need another inept mayor and confused corrupt city council in control of history. The statue is an excellent example of equestrian art, one of the few such historical items in Dallas not falling apart (Fair Park) or consigned to the ugly Soviet style architecture heap. City government should fix the fricking pot holes already…

    • thefncrow

      There’s a major difference between being a slaveholder and waging literal war against your own country because a political tide is turning that might eventually lead to having to give up your slaves.

      • Marcie Batten

        Then, according to you, “slave holding” per se is not as much of a “problem” as abolishing historical statuary for the simple reason that you don’t like descendants of southerners , even though at the end of the Civil War and in its immediate aftermath Lincoln (who you evidently consider retrospectively foolish) sought to “heal the nation”. Got it. I agree with the above. People are intelligent enough to figure the lessons of history out on their own.

        • thefncrow

          Here’s a hint: I am a descendant of southerners. My roots are in Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky. I don’t hate descendants of southerners. What I despise is statues that glamorize a bigot and traitor.

          Rank-and-file Confederate soldiers are one thing, but the figureheads of the confederacy are another topic entirely. Lee had a choice to make, and he chose to take up arms against the legitimate government over the possibility that he and his fellow statesmen might have to treat people like people and not like possessions.

          And yes, Lincoln was too light on southern traitors during Reconstruction, and that’s before Reconstruction was prematurely ended to settle the disputed 1876 election. What should have been done was something more like the denazification that Germany went through post-WW2. It hasn’t been 100% effective in rooting out Nazis from post-war Germany, but at least they recognized that step 1 in fixing the problem was tear down the symbols of hate and take active steps to prevent people from glamorizing prominent Nazi figures and sites with memorials.

  • Happy Bennett

    You do understand that the American Civil War was nothing like WWII? It’s just this sort of “confusion”, willful distortion, and ideological misinformation which is a compelling argument for keeping these American historical monuments in place. Your relatives in Germany or where ever they “decided’ to become Nazi party members and “fight with Hitler” must know that monuments never bothered Der Fuhrer one way or the other since he kept all of the historical monuments to the Weimar Republic pretty much vanquished at his own hands as well as the Volksdenkmahl in Leipzig which was a tribute to the Napoleonic War.

  • Marcie Batten

    But your (completely laughable) premise is that there are potentially large numbers of contemporaneous gullible people who will be “sucked into” some Twilight Zone vortex and start “glorifying the cause” as the result of viewing Travelers sturdy muscular bronzed hind quarters. Eee gads children—hide your eyes. (lol) (1920 was a long time ago).

    • thefncrow

      It’s an ongoing problem. Ask high school kids today if the Civil War was about slavery or not and many will say that it wasn’t. I know I myself was taught the bullshit “states rights” interpretation of why the Civil War was fought.

      The statues and memorials are part of the same attempt to distort the actual history.

      • Marcie Batten

        Most high school kids today can’t name Lincoln’s generals, don’t know a single Civil War battlefield and can’t accurately inform you of the dates the Civil War was fought. The “ongoing problem” IMO is that people who are ignorant of history are now belatedly, without cause unreasonably paranoid about statues and monuments. The uninformed and misguided want to tell everyone else what to think.

        • thefncrow

          The names of the generals, the battlefields, and the dates aren’t so much the important parts of learning about the war. The why is the most important part, and they’re not giving bad answers because they don’t remember, but because there’s been an active effort to teach the lie that the war was not about slavery. Like I said, I’ve been in a classroom where that false bullshit was being pushed by a teacher and was uncritically accepted by the class.

          I understand the history exactly, and that’s why these monuments are bullshit that should be removed. We don’t have to just take a wrecking ball to it, but if we’re going to let them survive, it should be to move them to a location where they can be surrounded with the proper context of the evils of the Confederate cause.

          • Brian Cleveland

            not only are the generals, battlefields, and dates critical, but visiting Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Antietam are critical, as is making it a goal for every American to visit both Pearl Harbor and Normandy.

            If you don’t make an effort, you reduce your knowledge to a Tweet and you open yourself up to misinformation that usually manipulates the past to make a statement about the political present.

            “Lost cause” myth, ok let’s debunk, educate, rethink…but most all of what I read from removers is just another myth…simple, one-sided, inaccurate, and just as politically motivated.

            The biggest hypocrites say get rid of the “lost cause” myth and then launch into “Lee was Hitler.” No, that’s replacing one myth with another.

          • thefncrow

            “not only are the generals, battlefields, and dates critical, but visiting Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Antietam are critical, as is making it a goal for every American to visit both Pearl Harbor and Normandy.”

            This is total nonsense. Knowing the specifics of the war is far less important than knowing the causes and impacts of the war. I’d 1000 times prefer someone be able to talk the cause of the war and the longer term impacts of the war but not be able to name a battleground or the generals involved rather than have someone who has an encyclopedic knowledge of battlegrounds and generals but who can’t talk about the cause, social context, and lasting impacts of the war. And to extend that to visiting battlegrounds is even more absurd, and I say this as someone who has toured Vicksburg on multiple occasions.

          • Brian Cleveland

            I guess we learned what you don’t know!

          • Happy Bennett

            You ” understand the history EXACTLY “(without any knowledge of the facts or events names of generals battlefields and dates) and “that’s why these monuments are bullshit and should be removed”. Amazing! That’s sort of like someone who wants to practice medicine without learning all that pesky anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology.

          • thefncrow

            At no point did I ever say I didn’t know generals, battlefields and dates. If you got that from my posts, I might suggest re-reading what I said.

            I said the actual details of the war are far less essential for the understanding of history than being able to understand causes and impacts of the war. This is a basic thing in education.

            Do you seriously think that it’d be super useful If someone could recite chronologically the major battles of the war and the generals involved in each battle but couldn’t tell you why the war was fought in the first place or what the long-term consequences of the war were?

        • Brian Cleveland
      • Brian Cleveland

        I’ll tell you the real true problem, thefncrow, ask high school kids today about the Civil War and they don’t even know who fought in it. Or wwii, or Vietnam. I’m not pro Confederate, I’m pro history. I don’t believe for a second that removing monuments will improve our understanding or interest in the past.

  • Brian Cleveland

    The UDC monument in Dallas is a memorial to fallen soldiers built by a German from Chicago. That is a fact. To label is racist only because it was built in 1896 is not evidence.

  • Linda parsel

    1.- NO Lee is NOT hailed Universally as an honorable man.
    2.- NO the proponents of removing Lee are neither hysterical, nor short sited.
    3.- Nobody would think building a monumental in Vietnam, to any US Generals, would be a good idea.
    If deep southern folk are so concerned about not removing a statue because it is part of their “heritage”; they should then be fully behind the idea of spending 200 – to 300 thousand towards putting up another statue about that heritage- right next to Lee. There should be a poignant statue of a whipped slave , in chains, on the selling block; perhaps with another statue of heroine Harriet Tubman with her arm outstretched pointing the direction to freedom.

  • Tinajlong

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa387:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash387GroupSuperGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa387..,….

  • Dennis

    There are no statues to George III, Benedict Arnold, or Aaron Burr, but you know who they are. They have not been ‘erased’ for lack of art celebrating their duplicity against America. And there is a great solution. The Civil War Museum of TExas in Fort Worth has a big front yard. Just donate it, Dallas.

  • Kirsten Bruner

    I disagree with you and ask that you look at another viewpoint. Have you considered those that fought on the other side? They are fallen Americans. Dallas is home to MANY who have ancestors that did not fight on the side of slavery and for the confederacy. Your agument is short sided.

    The park takes money from the city and should be a place for all. It is offensive to many. It downplays the role slavery played in the Civil War and puts a symbol of white supremacy on a pedestal. There can be a park for ALL to enjoy without the statue.

    The park as it is today is a disappointment and as someone who grew up in Dallas, I am not proud of it.

  • Freddie DC

    “Demeaning Lee demeans those souls who served with him.”

    Please!!! What about those poor souls who were enslaved? Try imagining THEIR suffrage for once.

  • rscott

    Does anyone really believe that the recent movement to remove these civil war statues will in any way help to re-unite the country?? Just the opposite. So why do it now? For what political purpose??

  • CitizenKane

    I am not surprised; many of us believe these Democrat relics of the Civil War and Jim Crow should be removed – BY CONSENSUS.

    Democrats controlled the south for decades before the rise of Republicanism in the south. These monuments flourished under Democrats. Why has it taken the Democrats so long to wake up to their racist past?

    Let us not forget our history, it was Republicanism that freed slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.

    But I am surprised that no one is talking about renaming Woodrow Wilson High School.

    Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive Democrat, was a racist. One of many WW’s quotes:

    “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation—until at last
    there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire
    of the South, to protect the Southern country.”

    Time to rename our High School (and also the Princeton U Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs) ?

  • John Franklin Guild

    This opinion illustrates everything that is wrong with these monuments. They give cover to people desperate to convince themselves that choosing to fight a war against your own country to preserve slavery wasn’t evil. Most of the people who fought had no choice in the matter and were neither pure nor evil. Lee did have a choice, and the only reason these monuments exist is to suggest that choice was morally defensible. It wasn’t.

    These monuments are the original PC statements. From 1900-1960 in the South, the “politically correct” thing to say was “we didn’t lose because we were wrong, our Southern heritage remains intact, as if we didn’t lose the war.” They were symbols of a continued fight against Northern meddling in Southern affairs in different ways–Jim Crow, resistance to civil rights laws, defying forced integration. There isn’t anything particularly “historical” about these mass produced shrines to Southern mythology.

  • richard_schumacher

    Yes, it’s a nice statue. It belongs in a museum with other antiques, or a cemetery with the dead and dead ideas. Monuments to rebellion and treason have no place on government property.