about his history of slave ownership? What purpose does that serve? It was legal back then, so regardless of how it is viewed today why is that relevant? Just because someone happened to own slaves (during a time when that was commonplace within society) it doesn't necessarily make that person the devil.

if you want to move the statue, then fine. If you want to rename a building, then fine. But I don't understand the need to add an asterisk on something historical when the reason the statue exists is to pay homage to his positive contributions to the university. Since when is it appropriate to balance their accomplishments by also listing their faults?

There's an important note here. EVERYONE in history has had faults. EVERYONE that you pay homage to for one reason or another did something controversial, illegal, or immoral at one point in their lives. Whether it was right or wrong at that time or even today it shouldn't cast a shadow on the reason for which they are being remembered.

Heaven help us if someday our government is run by vegetarians and they make eating meat illegal. Years from now our descendants will go through and wipe out all statues honoring people who craved a nice juicy steak.

I say this with some level of sarcasm, mainly to call out how "out of hand" these arguments have become. It's history, just let it be. Take it for what it's intended and then leave it at that.