Confederate statues, which elevate traitors, should be removed from landscape

Editor:

I am getting pretty sick and tired hearing there are “cultural and historical reasons” to keep Confederate statutes with more being said to justify the statute. Here’s why.

There were 12 states that seceded. When Congress said in the early 20th century that some monuments could be erected as a sign of reconciliation with those 12 states, statutes were not only erected in those 12 states but in 22 other states as well. Those statutes have no historical significance in those states and have nothing to do with reconciling with those communities. They were erected as symbols of white supremacy!

So when you come across a person arguing for Confederate statutes – and that is their right – ask them “in which state” and “what is the significance to that location.” If the statute is outside of the old confederacy or the person you are talking to does not know the statue’s relevancy, you are probably face to face with a supremacist or at the very least with an imbecile who does not understand they are venerating traitors. Either way the person is no history buff who may have some serious reasons to consider supporting keeping any particular statute up.

If you can hear it and repeat it, that does not make it smart. The statute debate is one of those things. Thirty-four states with statutes proves just the opposite.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion