I’m not for getting rid of the monument, but those soldiers were fighting to rip apart The United States.
They were fighting for self government...for the principle that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The states never agreed to surrender their sovereignty and bind themselves forever when they ratified the constitution. Indeed 3 states including Virginia expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time of ratification.
“I’m not for getting rid of the monument, but those soldiers were fighting to rip apart The United States.”
Were they? The civil war was almost fought in the 1830s. You can look up why if you dont know.
State nullification of federal laws deemed unfair or unreasonable was part of the reason. It was not without precedent. It as not an unreasonable view at the time.
So from that perspective they were not ripping the US apart. The matter was settled after the loss of 500,000 American lives.
But you cannot support your thesis that “they were intent on ripping the USA apart”
This is not to quibble over the outcome but for you to state without humility that the South was wrong about the supremacy of States rights (even in regards to the abomination of slavery) when it was a Constitutionally unresolved issue (nullification) is absurd.
In the 1830s, the federal gov’t backed down, as they should have because of the nature of the tariff of abominations, and its blatant regional favoritism.
You cannot (factually) say in the context of today that the South wished to “tear the US apart” when they were exercising a not unreasonable interpretation of the Constitution at the time.
The issue was solved violently. There is no technical argument now. But let there be no mistake, the Americans who were part of the confederacy were Americans before, during, and after the civil war. Even if it took Congress a century to catch up to the obvious.
Ezekiels work was first and foremost about reconciliation. Folks who dont like its symbology are free to point it out, maybe with another monument. But instead they choose to remove (and probably destroy) a great historical work.
So it leaves open the precedent that all monuments, indeed all history is subject to future interpretation to empower an aggrieved collective.
You are acting like an aggrieved collective, empowered by your ignorance of history and your lack of self restraint and creativity to imagine a reasonable response to a monument you hate and a Constitution, and its past manifestations that you can only see through modern eyes.
Americans buried in Arlington on both sides of the civil war would disagree with your view if you could ask them.
Alas this view isnt popular, but as Americans we are (for the moment) free to disagree. Soon though, you and your ilk may well be able to change that, as you are already doing. You dont even know you are part of that cabal. But you are.
Merry Christmas.
Fixed it for ya.