How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?

We should allow states to make this decision independently

Question: How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?
Position‹2 of 5›: "Individual states should make the call. A universal consensus is not necessary."
Argument: We should allow states to make this decision independently

The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment protects states' right to make some decisions independently. We must follow this guideline and allow states to decide the fate of controversial statues.

The argument

According to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As a founding principle of our nation, this amendment ensures that states can make some decisions independently, without intervention from the federal government. States have made independent decisions about the removal of symbols in the past. After the horrific mass church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, state officials chose to remove the Confederate flag from their Statehouse lawn. Recently, they removed a statue of John C. Calhoun from Marion Square. These decisions prove that states are entirely capable of assessing the merit of statues and then choosing to remove or preserve them. Our nation's founders knew this and trusted that state officials would use this power wisely, listening to the voices of their constituents and acting on their behalf. States' rights are an essential aspect of our government: we must not weaken them because of this issue. For this reason, we must allow states and local governments to make this decision independently.

Premises

[P1]The 10th Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, making state-level decision-making a foundational constitutional principle. [P2] States have already demonstrated their capability to responsibly assess and remove controversial symbols, as shown by South Carolina's removal of the Confederate flag and the John C. Calhoun statue. [P3] Weakening states' rights by imposing a federal consensus on statue removal would undermine an essential aspect of our governmental structure. [C] Therefore, individual states should be allowed to decide independently whether to remove controversial statues.

Counter-arguments

In years past, citizens have repeatedly asked their local governing officials to remove certain monuments. For the most part, these requests have been ignored. In light of this, it is clear that meaningful change regarding these statues will have to come from a higher level. If activists wait for their elected officials to make decisions regarding statue removal, they will lose the support of the wider community, which was sparked by the death of George Floyd. The movement will lose momentum and these statues will never be removed. It would also be much more time-efficient for the federal government to issue a statement about the removal of controversial statues, and it would save local governments hours of debate over this issue.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The record the premise cites as demonstrated capability is read differently by the counter, which notes that residents have repeatedly asked local officials to remove particular monuments and that those requests have for the most part been ignored — evidence that the state and local level is where such decisions stall. [Rejecting P3] The counter weighs the cost of deference against the cost to the campaign: waiting on elected officials risks losing the wider community's support and the momentum that followed George Floyd's death, leaving the statues in place, whereas a federal statement would be quicker and would spare local governments hours of debate.