That was my point, that today everyone wants to define him by that one act.

Let’s be clear about a couple of points here. This wasn’t just some youthful indiscretion here like posing for playboy or sexting. He was a mature adult who took part in and was resposnsible for the single greatest number of war time death the US has seen. That was the effect of his choosing to lead the confederate army. Whether it would have been the same if he lead them or not is moot. He did lead them. He did partake in this mass of death over this fight of ideologies.

And these monuments aren’t an offense like using salty language in front of women and children. These monuments represent ideas and philosophies that were and are an affront to humanity and the US and our Constitution.

He may have struggled with his decision, he may have disagreed with the reasons, he may have rejoiced when it was over and got drunk with Grant, but in the end none of that made a difference in his life altering decision to lead the Confederate Army and the IDEAS that army fought for.

What is being recommended is not removing and erasing reminders of history (of which we have a plethora, including the graves of the people who died) but moving them someplace where the context you bemoan is lost is more accessible. That’s what museums are for, remembering historical context.

In reality, keeping such monuments in public spheres _without_ context erases history. It says there was nothing wrong with celebrating what these things represented then and now, and the war that surrounded and was caused by those ideas. THAT is revisionist history.