I've said this in the other thread but this time I'd like to ask a question, if North Korea decides to forget with the US one day and America invades North Korea, would you people want these two statues:
kept or destroyed? and don't pull that "Oh it's just a memorial for fallen soldiers not evil dictators" bullstuff. Anything that goes against morality shouldn't be commemorated
The difference is that Robert E Lee was a citizen of rebel Virginia. He didn't choose to live in a rebel-occupied state and he didn't start the revolution, unlike the North Korean dictators. You could make this argument about a statue of Jefferson Davis since he directly caused and lead the revolution against the Union, but most of these war memorials honor soldiers and generals. Robert didn't go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of US soldiers because he
loved slavery or something--he did it because they were there. The Confederacy didn't invade the north--the Union stormed through the Confederacy and displaced millions of people through extremely destructive methods of warfare that included burning farms and homes, destroying railroad tracks and killing livestock. The last person executed by the federal government was killed because he tore down a Union flag in a Confederate state. The Union was brutal and disgusting during the war and while that obviously doesn't excuse the atrocities of slavery and revolution committed by the Confederacy it's ridiculous to act as though every random soldier and general went to war to defend slavery or because they hated liberalism. They went to war because
what else are you going to do when people from a thousand miles away burning your home to the ground? And as for Robert E. Lee--a military officer is literally legally required to serve their country whether they agree with it or not. Are you suggesting it would've been more moral for him to betray the Confederacy? Because I don't really think that's the case.
Random soldiers and generals aren't evil because they followed stuffty orders. This obviously isn't always the case--national socialist generals had no such defense of being terrorized. They weren't ever on the 'defense' during the first half of the war. But it applies to the Confederacy.
Poll