Is it necessary to point out that George Washington took up arms against the British and that could be the reason you don't see too many statues of him in the UK?
You can debate the right and wrong of this jihad against the statues of Confederate leaders and generals, but Boykin is technically correct when he called Lee and the others traitors. By the definition of treason outlined in Article III of the Constitution they were. And if he wants them banned on those grounds well that's his opinion and he has a right to it. Others disagree with him and they have the same right to their opinions.
We are going to get the zot? You are an embarrassment and have been flying under the radar for years now.
No, you don’t see statues of Washington in the U.K. But that’s because he was not a regional hero for British subjects of the Isles. A better analogy to Lee would be, perhaps, William Wallace. He took up arms in a failed rebellion against England, and yes, statues of him still exist in Scotland, just as statues of Washington would likely exist in the Americas had the Americans lost their war for independence.
I stand by my point. It’s silly to bring this up as if it signifies a meaningful distinction between Lee and Washington. In fact, Lee, like many Americans at the time, believed secession was legal, precedent defined in the Declaration (though he opposed actual secession in 1861). Washington and Lee, and their efforts toward independence, were more similar than they were different. Ironically, it could easily be argued that Lee’s effort had more support in law.
He is, however, entitled to express this point as pithy stuff, just as I’m free to point out that it’s a ridiculous argument.