Confederate controversy
Confederate holiday
Regarding “A welcome discussion on the Confederacy,” (A33, Dec. 8): Most Texans will probably be surprised to learn that Confederate Heroes’ Day is an official state holiday that requires only a skeleton crew to show up for work. Offensive to many on the face of it, its placement on the calendar in proximity to Martin Luther King Jr. Day makes it egregiously so. Certainly, the holiday does not reflect the diverse interests and values of the people of Texas. While legislators debate the historical value of Confederate monuments and statues, the removal of this holiday should require little debate. George Ebert, Kingwood
To remember, not celebrate
Regarding “A welcome discussion on the Confederacy,” (A33, Dec. 8): The editorial asks for a discussion on the subject of Confederate monuments, but what is really at the heart of the piece is clear: remove the monuments. The sentence that “there is a memorial that’s topped by a traitor to the United States and based on a lie” tells it all. What if the discussion included the idea that Confederate monuments mean different things to different people? What one may see as hateful, another sees as a sentimental reminder of one’s ancestors who fought for their belief and may even have died for it. Yes, belief. Not the belief that slavery was good. Very few Confederate soldiers were slaveholders, but they fought for principles regarding their very governance that they feared were endangered. The author claims that these statues “celebrate” the Confederacy. Not all symbols celebrate something. If you ask a Christian if the cross is a celebratory symbol, it is unlikely the response would be affirmative. This is not a true call for discussion, it is the rehashing of the idea that these monuments are racist and a symbol of white supremacy. Tearing down structures is not the answer. Julia Purtill, Richmond
States’ rights myth
Regarding “A welcome discussion on the Confederacy,” (A33, Dec. 8): States’ rights was not a cause of the Civil War. If you read the Ordinance of Secession, you will find the issue was slavery. Only one, that of South Carolina, made mention of states’ rights and only in the context of preserving slavery. The Texas declaration made minor mention of the federal government’s failure to provide protection from Mexican bandits and Indians but as an afterthought. The Mississippi declaration states: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” The Georgia declaration states: “The prohibition of slavery is the cardinal principle of this organization.” The trope of states’ rights was invented after the Civil War to distract attention to the ugly fact that the Confederate states seceded for one purpose only: the preservation of slavery. David McMillin, The Woodlands