How about replacing all figures of Confederate leaders with

[MineralMan]

A depiction of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomatox, viz:



The Confederacy lost its treasonous war and the Union was preserved. That is the only thing worthy of commemoration, in my opinion

[TexasProgresive]

1. Yesterday I suggested statues modeled on this scene

[MineralMan]

3. Thanks! I missed your post.

And that particular image would be great as statuary, for sure. I like it!

[Lil Missy]

2. Better yet - replace them with Obama figures.

[FSogol]

4. Can we depict Lee in a white polo shirt, black belt, and khakis, with a "L" on his forehead?

[MineralMan]

6. Why not? But seriously,

Lee's surrender marks the end of that misbegotten war. I'd like to see that as the memorial people see when they visit historical sites having to do with the Civil War, with a plaque identifying the scene and the people in the scene. Wherever you go and whatever battlefield you visit, there will be Lee surrendering to Grant.

That is the story of the war, really. An insurrection that killed so many finally was over and the Union had survived without being broken. That is the true story of the Civil War, and is what should be remembered as a cautionary tale for others who would seek to divide the nation.

Just my opinion.

[FSogol]

8. I agree. Lee only did one thing that makes him worthy of remembering.

When he surrendered and lost, he quit the southern cause. He was urged to keep it going, but he declined.

From the VA Historical Society:

Lee's military career, which had started at West Point many years before, had ended, and his civilian life began when he returned to Richmond and his family on April 15th (1865). For the next two months Lee lived in a city busily rebuilding itself. That summer, he and his family escaped the chaotic atmosphere of the capital city and took up residence at Derwent, a house owned by Elizabeth Randolph Cocke west of Richmond in Powhatan County. There, Lee enjoyed life in the country and considered buying land and living out his remaining years as a farmer. Whatever happened, he had no desire to leave Virginia. "I cannot desert my native state in the hour of her adversity," he remarked to a friend. "I must abide her fortune, and share her fate."

The solitude did not last long. The trustees of Washington College in Lexington, then looking for a new president, decided that Lee was the perfect choice. He had been superintendent of West Point earlier in his military career, and more importantly, he had a very recognizable name in 1865. The college, mired in financial difficulties, needed a prominent person to help raise funds. At first Lee hesitated, but on the advice of friends and family he eventually accepted the position. He wrote to the trustees that he believed, "it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony."

http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/robert-e-lee-after-war

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, and Lee's response should have been the universal response

from people who had acted for the Confederacy. The War ended, but in many people's minds, it never ended. That sentiment still exists today in some people, and is still interfering with Lee's goal of "restoration of peace and harmony."

The Confederacy failed to achieve its ugly goals of retaining the institution of slavery and the way of life it enabled. Yet, that goal is still in evidence today in some people's minds. Reinforcing such a thing, through displays of heroic statuary and the like, is a travesty I believe.

[FSogol]

12. Lee has charged with treason, but Grant interceded and convinced Andrew Johnson to not prosecute.

It would have been better to prosecute him, find him guilty, and then pardon him. No one at that time foresaw the Confederacy continuing forever.

[Yupster]

25. The problem was that a treason conviction was by no means certain

Jefferson Davis is a better case than Lee.

Lee wanted none of it. He wanted to go to a peaceful useful citizenship and urged his followers to do the same.

Davis was different. Davis was arrested and imprisoned and charged with treason. He hired a high powered group of northern lawyers to defend him and he demanded his right to an open and speedy trial.

His defense was that secession was not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it fell under the 10th Amendment as a right of the individual states. It was also understood during the ratification debates that a state could leave if it didn't like the Constitutional government. If that wasn't understood there's no way the Constitution would have ever been ratified in the first place.

Therefore since secession was legal and legally done, would the foreign army now occupying the southern confederacy kindly leave and let its government begin the long process of rebuilding the so badly hurt nation.

Davis spent the next 20 years demanding his trial. The government never gave it to him. They just left him indicted his whole life, something we'd all agree is wrong.

In a world where the Tenth Amendment was still part of the Constitution, the federal government had no income taxes, education department, national parks, social security, medicare, food and drug regulations or pretty much anything else besides an armed forces, the case was far from a slam dunk. So the government never chanced it. It wasn't worth the risk.

So now 150 years later, we declare him guilty without trial.

[Keoka]

5. History

Why not have a neutral location where after a certain time period ALL past history can be digitally reproduced & along with "words", statues & other history it will be available for reference. We can have a CENTRAL "repository" for FEDERAL history & STATE central repositories.

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. isn't that what museums are for?

[rurallib]

7. I would really like to see them replaced with heroes of civil and human rights

Dr. King of course, but also Medgar Evers, geez do we ever need a statue of Thurgood Marshall someplace - what a hero that man was.
Sojourner Truth
Margaret Sanger for her lead on reproductive rights.
For some reason I am drawing a blank right now - leaders of the suffrage movement also like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton come immediately to mind.

International human rights leaders like Schindler. Anne Frank should have statues all over the US.

Just off the top of my head.

[MineralMan]

9. I'd like to see more such depictions, too.

However, I would prefer that they be placed in locations significant to their message. Where Civil War memorials already exist, I would like to see the END of that war commemorated, not the war itself. The historical sites exist, but the real story is not being told. Lee's surrender tells the story of a cause that was wrong and a war that ended through the victory of the preservation of the nation.

I've felt that way for decades, beginning with my first visit to a Civil War battle site. It's not a popular point of view, however.

If we're going to put up historical markers and statuary regarding the war, they should be about how that war ended, not how it was fought.

That's my opinion.

[rurallib]

14. AMEN TO THAT!

[Yupster]

11. That was Lee and Grant both at their best

At that particular moment the country was very lucky to have two men of such high quality at that meeting. Lesser men in either spot could have hurt our nation horribly.

Grant especially doesn't get near the credit he deserves from history.

It's why history is so interesting to study.

Grant and Lee, who were so different in so many ways that people would never expect, came together to end a war in the best way it could have been ended. At the Hampton Roads conference Grant even directly broke Lincoln's orders to try to make peace.

As an old history teacher and textbook author, I greatly admire both of them.

[MineralMan]

16. It's a pity that their sentiments weren't reflected by some.

They put an end to the fighting and vowed to rebuild the nation. Yet, even today, we see the evidence that the war never ended in some people's minds and is still being fought, one way or another, again and again. It is a terrible thing that damages much.

[WinkyDink]

26. I disagree, re: "credit." E.g., Grant's autobiography is considered amongst the very finest:

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/classics-review-the-personal-memoirs-of-us-grant/

"What is extraordinary about Grant's Memoirs is its clarity, which reflected the clarity of thought and expression that distinguished Grant as a military commander."

"Grant's Memoirs confront us with the case study of unexpected genius arising from the most unusual and humble circumstances, evidence that democracy can produce great and reflective commanders as well as great statesmen like Lincoln."

[Yupster]

30. I agree with that

Grant's book is excellent.

I think if you'd ask most people all they'd know about Grant was he was a drunk. If they knew anything about the war it would be, he was okay but he just won because he had the men and material. He is very much underappreciated as a general, and a person.

BTW, have you read Longstreet's autobiography? There are some interesting vignettes in that. Have to go to work though.

[WinkyDink]

32. I had no idea Grant was a drunk! I daresay most Americans would just remember him as General and

President! Moreover, downplaying Grant over "men and material"?

Seriously, you over-estimate Americans in our knowledge of extraneous detail and under-estimate in our knowledge of the larger picture.

No, I haven't read Longstreet---or Grant, for that matter. I am ineffably bored by 19th-C. US History.

(I HAVE read, OTOH, Churchill's multi-volume "History of the English-Speaking Peoples," e.g. World and especially British history has always been my thang.)

[Generic Other]

15. It's like we let them have an easement for 150 years

And now we are trying to get them to stop driving through our property. All we really can do is appeal to their better nature. Some cities seem to be deciding to take down divisive monuments, but mostly because they and their citizens decided it was the right thing to do. It was not citizens of blue states' doing really.

I just fear Trump is leading the country into a second Civil War.

[MineralMan]

18. For too many, there is no better nature.

And that's the source of the current problems. A small minority of people believe that their warped, destructive point of view is the only correct one. The rest of us must work to block them in their goals.

[Generic Other]

24. We let state's rights win over a united country

It means some states create their own laws, stuff other states would consider lawlessness. Maybe it was a mistake to give so much power to 50 indie governments under a larger umbrella. One set of consistent rules would maybe help. I always thought the Bill of rights, fed laws, etc. provided that stability, until the GOP began dismantling centuries of positive gains we have made.

Civil Rights, Environmental protections, Fairness doctrines, equal opportunities: losing ground in these areas have irreparably harmed us in my opinion.

We need better civics classes, more informed voters, and maybe some form of national service (not just military) for young people to pay for college.

[madaboutharry]

17. Maybe they should be replaced with monuments

to great African American leaders like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King, Jr., and all those who contributed to the history and culture of our country in the most positive ways.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes. Those need to be commemorated. However, where

the Civil War is still prominent in the minds of some, the places that are commemorated with statuary celebrating the division, some symbolism of the end of that war would be a better choice, I believe. Commemorating great AA leaders is crucial, but I believe should be done in places significant to that struggle, separately from commemorating the END of the Civil War, rather than the war itself.

[WinkyDink]

27. Yes! And President Obama! Let's see how Trump feels about statues of historical figures THEN.

[Blue_true]

20. Or put statues of William T. Shernan and Phillip Sheridan on every town square in America.

Or statues of the great southern Union General who refused to betray his country or his conscience and fought for to preserve the Union and free human beings from bondage.

[MineralMan]

21. I'd prefer symbolism of the surrender and the loss by the Confederacy.

Burn that into the minds of people. The Confederacy was a failure. Reason finally prevailed. Let's celebrate that wherever the Civil War is still being fought in people's minds. Put forward the surrender and the defeat of that idea.

"Daddy...who are those two men?"

"Well, they're soldiers. They fought against each other, but finally came to terms and ended the Civil War. That war was a terrible mistake, and the statues are depicting the end of that mistake."

"OK"

[WinkyDink]

28. "Came to terms"?? Bwahahaha! Can a child not handle the term "SURRENDER"?

[Generic Other]

33. There is a Sherman Elementary School in my town and a Sheridan Street too

I realize "War is Hell" Sherman is seen as a monster in the South.

And General "The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian" Sheridan came West and had a child with a Native woman whom he abandoned.

I have many times thought we should not be honoring their names because they were cruel men, but I cannot deny that they refused to take up arms against the North. They did not betray the Union. And that's why their statues still stand.

[Blue_true]

22. Did Lee really have a choice bet surrender?

If he had tried to turn his army south away from Grant, he would have run headlong into the armies of Sherman and Sheridan and got destroyed.

[MineralMan]

23. No, he didn't. The Union at that point had clearly won.

Lee surrendered because there was no other option. The Union had won. It was over.

[Yupster]

29. Yes of course he did

His choice was to order the army in small units to head for the nearby Appalachians where they would continue the war in guerrilla fashion. In fact he knew very well that this is what President Davis would have wanted him to do.

He chose to order his army to surrender as a unit. It was maybe his greatest gift to the nation, even bigger than the reforms he instituted at West Point. Imagine a guerrilla war in the mountains and swamps of the south going on for who knows how many years all over the south. It would be the KKK period times ten.

[Blue_true]

31. Sherman's army was very good at fighting in swampland.

The terrorists would have been all killed. In the long run, that would have been best for the country.