Judge historical figures by historical standards

Dear Editor,

Much ink has been spilled recently about the statues in Kingston, so here’s my two cents:

Memorials are erected to honor people who made a positive impact on their age and on local history. Digging too deeply into the past will likely reveal flaws that all humans possess, and if we held everyone to an impossible standard of exemplary behavior, there would never be any statues at all — especially if we hold 17th-century figures to 21st-century social and ethical norms.

I propose that we decide the fate of monuments based on the reason they were erected. Henry Hudson, George Clinton, and Peter Stuyvesant, for all their flaws, made significant contributions to American history. That’s why their statues stand in Kingston. Like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, they operated within the moral framework of their time.

On the other hand, the monuments to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and their traitorous confederates stand specifically because of their spirited defense of slavery and their opposition to the United States of America. Their actions should not be celebrated.

I think it’s wrong to try to sanitize history by excluding everyone who doesn’t meet current standards. With luck, those standards will continue to rise and in another hundred years people we celebrate today may no longer be worthy of our adulation. Should all statues be removed from public spaces? Who among us is capable of casting the first stone? Steve Massardo Saugerties, N.Y.