The fact is that until around 1900 the South was a very poor region, and there was not enough money for such extravagance as erecting statues to honor the soldiers. The economy surged around the turn of the century, and signs of that surge are everywhere, not only in the south.

The reasoning behind this article is deeply flawed. Such an idea can only be maintained by viewing the South as a monolith, or as thinking of the South as a person with intention. But the South is a vast area with a great variety of opinions and personalities.

Who is it that put up the monuments? Primarily it was society ladies in larger towns and cities who wanted to express gratitude to the soldiers, many of whom were still alive. You would be hard-pressed to connect those society ladies with the practice of vigilante justice. Vigilante justice, or lynching, was practiced primarily in rural areas by small farmers and farm laborers in places where there was a weak police presence.

There was a small uptick in the establishment of new monuments in the sixties, and part of that did have to do with opposition to social progress, but those monuments are a very small fraction of the total. The South in general has moved well beyond that era and is today ahead of the country as a whole in race relations.

It is an interesting phenomenon. Let race riots break out in northern cities and immediately all eyes are on the South, with a barrage of hateful and judgmental news articles appearing, such as this one. It must feel good superficially to have a scapegoat, but deep down you know as well as I that you are on thin ice.

[worldpopulationreview.com]