including the cross and various flags. Furthermore, I think that there is a distinction to be made between monuments erected for the purposes of glorifying the cause and statues memorializing the soldiers.

In the current hysteria, I think people overlook that or just assume that anything related to the South is at the same time directly related to current or past hate groups. It isn't necessarily so even if the hate groups insist otherwise.

I think this whole idea is a slippery slope where symbols and images become the whipping boy of the politics de jour. At what point does someone think that sensibilities at some time in the future requires removal of all statues and images of politicians who were slave holders, or generals and politicians who led the extermination of Indians, or presidents and generals who were responsible for the carnage of Viet Nam and Iraq?

Our history has not always adhered to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. I think that acknowledging those stains on our national conscience honestly rather than removing them from our collective consciousness serves us better.

I know the focus now is "treason" but it could just as easily be defined as something else in the future. In Soviet Russia they wrote people and events out of history but that should not be our tradition.