By Martin H. Levinson

Why the push to remove Confederate monuments? Those memorials were erected to honor brave American patriots who decided early on that the deep state was a threat to individual liberty and the best way to remedy that was to secede. And secede they did, but not in a nasty, mean-spirited way. They seceded with grace and decorum, giving a 21-gun salute to Fort Sumter as they left the Union, which is why the contretemps that resulted from their withdrawal is called the “civil” war.

Some argue that the leaders of the Confederacy were traitors who, rather than being honored with monuments, should have been tried for treason and hung. But that sort of thinking only works if you use a standard dictionary definition of “traitor” or the U.S. Constitution’s definition of “treason.” If you ditch those definitional impediments you could argue that the leaders of the Confederacy were principled partisans who were trying to help the homeland by attending to business in their home states.

To remove the Confederate monuments would be like erasing history. It would be like slavery never existed and the country in the nineteenth century was all kumbaya. While studies done by historians at the College of Alternative Facts have found the aforementioned scenario was actually true, liberals don’t think that was the case so they should be fighting hard to keep the Confederate monuments in place.

Sadly, statues are not the only Confederate symbols on the chopping block. There have been calls to eliminate the names of Confederates from US military installations, which would be tantamount to admitting that it wasn’t a good idea to put Confederate names on those installations in the first place. But it was a good idea, as it showed the US military was so confident in its fighting abilities that it was not afraid to name its facilities after its foes. Rather than taking away the names of Confederate leaders from military bases the military should consider using the names of enemy leaders from other parts of the world on future military posts. For example, there could be a Fort Osama bin Laden, Fort Ho Chi Minh, and Camp Castro.

The U.S. Office of Statue, Immigration, and Blacks on Voter-Rolls Removal has estimated that it costs around $500,000 to do away with your average horseback-riding, sword-holding, hundred-year-old, son of the South-Shall Rise-Again statue. That’s a lot of money that could be more usefully spent on other things like rubber bullets, pepper spray, and armored Humvees to stop protests against police violence by pro-abortion, transgendered, left wing radicals.

Lastly, banishing Confederate statutes would be a slap in the face to members of the US Daughters of the Confederacy, an American hereditary association of Southern women founded in Nashville in 1894. The stated mission of these fine ladies has been the funding and erection of memorials to soldiers of the Confederate States Army. The USDC, which until recent decades has been involved in building monuments to the Ku Klux Klan, has worked tirelessly over the years to pay homage to those who fought for the Lost Cause and to make sure everybody in the South knows his or her place. This group has already taken a hit, as the USDC headquarters building in Richmond was set on fire during the George Floyd protests in May. Why add insult to injury by putting an end to the solipsism and racial intolerance that has defined the organization’s very existence?

The notion of doing away with Confederate monuments is clearly a very bad one that, in addition to all the other reasons that have been given, would lead to pain and suffering for bigots, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists all across this wonderful land. But America is better than that. This should be a time of healing and a time of trying to make America great again, or at last not as bad as it could be if the electoral college was abolished and everyone’s vote was counted equally in presidential elections. Keep those monuments up! It’s the alt right thing to do.