Statue should have stayed

Re: The Confederate monuments battle, Aug. 16

The current mantra goes somewhat like this: “The U. S. civil war was fought over slavery: South bad, North good.” This narrative does not explain why such slaveholding states as Maryland and Kentucky fought for the North and did not abolish slavery until well after Emancipation Act of 1863 ( it excluded border states). Perhaps there was more to it?

Pulling down a statue of a soldier is wrong. Even the German Wehrmacht is allowed to have commemorative statues to its fallen combatants. And yes, Gen. Robert E. Lee had slaves, and this appears to be his only shortcoming. So did George Washington and Julius Caesar. Are their monuments next?

Conrad Black hit the nail on the head with his article last Saturday. Things should start with an honest debate based on facts and reality and not on a preordained outcome. We would all be better for it. Mark Skowronski, Toronto

The debacle that has ensued over a misguided municipal government’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee is deplorable and has been blown out of context by the American media’s distrust of their president. All blame for this debacle should rest with the municipal representatives.

Robert E. Lee was a believer in state rights, much like RenéLéveque,w ho wished to dismember Canada. However, I am willing to accept, without violence, avenues and boulevards named after him, and accept that to others he was a sincere patriot. To many Americans Lee was a hero, an inspired general and a very kind and wise man. To denigrate his memory was inflammatory.

Both Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Lee served their country very well on April 9, 1865, when Lee surrendered, effectively ending the American Civil War. It would appear that intolerant lunatics of the right and left, including the municipal council that demanded Lee’s statue’s removal, have served their nation less admirably. D. C. McCaffrey, Ottawa