LAST WEEK: ARE SYMBOLS OF CONFEDERACY HISTORICAL OR HURTFUL?

The recent death of a young woman protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, sparked debate about displaying monuments of Confederate leaders. While some were erected to honor the dead, others were used as symbols of hatred. And with others, it’s not so obvious. Last week the AJC asked readers for their opinion on what should be done with these symbols.

I have lived in Georgia since 1971, in and around the city of Atlanta and have traveled to most Georgia cities and other than the Stone Mountain carving I cannot name one Confederate symbol or know where one is in the entire state. I would say that goes for most people in Georgia. — Bert Fontaine

Most Confederate memorials were erected not by white supremacists or haters or evildoers. They arose from the mourning and brokenness of Southern women and children who sought some small way to commemorate an entire generation of men wiped out by war. Many had not even graves to visit on quiet Sunday afternoons, for their husbands, brothers, fathers and grandfathers lay far away in unmarked burials beneath battlefields. Thus these women, many penniless, scraped together small donations to contribute toward the modest statues seen now in courthouse squares across the South . ... Let us not be so flooded by our passions that we resort to mindless destruction. — Amanda Warren, Buford

Leave them where they are, but do absolutely no active maintenance on them. Let the statues weather, and get covered with pigeon dung. Let nature ‘sand-blast’ the Stone Mountain relief. The deterioration of such monuments will be slow (hundreds of years), but steady. Perhaps also an excellent metaphor for the message of these monuments. — Robert Ensign, Atlanta

If they are on tax payer property move them to a museum or a privately owned place. We must retain our history good or bad. We learn from our deeds good or bad. Streets and buildings is a bit much. Lets not drive a wedge between what has been achieved so far. — Frank Wolak Middle ground means mutual respect.

The best outcome of this debate would be for each side to see things from the other perspective . ... As for the Stone Mountain carving, keep it but add images of slaves, which would be a more accurate portrayal of the Confederacy – a time of great suffering, not celebration. — Larry Hand, Woodstock

Monuments to history are one thing but here’re some clues that a monument has the wrong intent. It mentions “the Lost Cause” or Yankee“invaders ,” etc. There’ s a clear difference between noting history and making a political statement. Besides some obvious statues, Atlanta’s surrounded by dozens of these type battlefield markers that do exactly that. — Darryl Weaver, Atlanta

Please leave the Confederate monuments alone. They have harmed no one for the years that they have been in place. If you look at those and feel that they are harming you in some way, please educate yourself on the truths of the causes of the war. My greatgrandfathers did not fight to keep slavery. They went to war after Lincoln started an illegal war to keep their homes and property safe. — Marie Bath, Lawrenceville

The “Middle Ground” should be the “right ground.” Whomever put them up should take them down — city, county, state or federal government in an orderly process as directed by their constituency. The story should be told however as to how these symbols were created. The almost 100 year tyranny of Southern Democrats perpetuating “Jim Crow” and racist practices placed many of these as symbols of intimidation. — Brandt Ross, Atlanta History has shown that the destruction of painful reminders of the past is a mistake. The photo of the defaced statue of Robert E. Lee reminded this reader of mutilated statues in Paris’ Latin Quarter, damage inflicted in the 1790s during the hysteria of the French Revolution . ... The ancient Romans partially dismantled Stonehenge and carted off the stones to be used as material for other construction projects . ... And history will prove that the destruction and/or renaming of the reminders of an unfortunate period in our past is a mistake. — Joanna Patterson

Yes, all vestiges of this period in the country’s history should be removed. The fact that they were erected many years after the Civil War, during the periods of Jim Crow laws and extremism racial views testify to the reason for their placement in the first place — less to honor these individuals and more to proclaim white supremacy as the unspoken rule of the land. These persons were traitors, neither heroes nor patriots. — Beverly Clopton

I want all the monuments to stay as they are, none removed or moved to another area. The media is the reason there is so much hate within the United States. Why report all these protests? That’s what both sides want. This is not news we want to hear. These monuments are a work of art. Is there a law against destroying artists’ work? — Billy and Virginia Williams