Confederate monuments are not needed to represent Southern pride
Currently, Southern pride is associated with kindness and good food. It shouldn’t be ruined by remembering the Civil War.
<
(2 of 2)
Next argument >
The Argument
During the Civil War, statues were put up to honor the confederate soldiers and generals. Now that the civil war is over, the statues can be taken down. They have negative connotations anyway, and the southern ex-confederate states can have better monuments to exhibit. The South has many reasons to be proud of their culture - it is not necessary to celebrate confederates.
Counter arguments
The statues are a representation of Southern history. The Southern ex-confederate doesn’t take pride in the idea of slavery or separation of the states. The statues are reverenced as historical figures. If they should be taken down because they have connotations, perhaps other monuments should be taken down too. Mount Rushmore was taken from the Sioux tribe without compensation.[1] Not only that, but the heads were carved by a Ku Klux Klan sympathizer named Gutzon Borglum. Therefore, all controversial monuments should be taken down if that’s the issue. It is incorrect that only winners of wars are able to commemorate important historical figures. History tends to become incorrect if written only by the winners.
Proponents
Premises
[P1] Confederate monuments honor confederate soldiers.
[P2] The Civil War is over.
[P3] The monuments are no longer a relevant symbol of Southern pride.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Confederate monuments currently honor the history of the southern ex-confederate states. No one honors the confederate side of the civil war anymore.