Crusade against statue proves people easily offended

By: Addley Fannin

Posted: 2/5/08

There is a statue in Denton Square of a confederate soldier.
It's not a large statue, maybe five and a half feet tall, and it stands on top of an eight-foot archway dedicated by Daughters of the Confederacy. It's not really noticeable unless one looks closely, but the soldier has stood watch in front of the courthouse since his dedication on June 3, 1918.
Recently, though, a group of petitioners has begun a crusade against the soldier, claiming he is a symbol of racism. They have threatened to boycott the stores in the surrounding area unless the symbol of a "racist terrorist" is torn down and disposed of.
When the e-mail stating the case first appeared in my inbox, I had to roll my eyes. This petition is a joke illustrated with blatant ignorance and supported only by the ultra-politically-correct atmosphere that has turned America into, as some pundits put it, "The land of free and the home of the easily offended."
The Confederate soldier is not a symbol of racism. As history teachers worth their salt will tell you, slavery was one of the issues in the Civil War, but it wasn't the cause.
Especially in the North Texas area, which had few slaves in comparison to areas like Georgia and the rest of the Deep South, it wasn't the focus of the war- economics and states' rights were.
The soldiers of the Confederacy weren't going into battle solely to keep the institution of slavery in place. They went into battle to protect their homes and what they viewed to be their way of life. From the South's point of view, they were being railroaded. Can we really look back at them now and say their courage was meant as an insult?
Maybe we don't agree with what their morals were. But these young men went into battle full of courage and faith in what they believed. For that reason alone, the statue deserves to stand as a reminder of hometown heroes.
Petitioners also complain the two drinking fountains on either side of the soldier's archway represent the Jim Crow era and the desire to return to a time of "separate but equal." Problem is, they're only half right.
The two fountains do have something to do with Jim Crow, but only because the statue was erected during the time these laws were in place. Because of this, the two fountains (neither of which work anymore, mind you) should be preserved as a historical feature, a reminder that "separate but equal" did happen and why it should never happen again.
Plus, it's almost stretching it to claim the two fountains are there specifically to separate the races. It's equally easy to argue they were added on both sides for symmetry. Art students would probably agree an arch with a fountain on one side but not the other would look pretty silly.
To destroy the statue would be ignorant and demeaning to the history of the area. For the sake of history and in memory of the young men who gave their lives for a cause they truly believed in, the statue should be allowed to remain.
Addley Fannin is an Odessa freshman studying Creative Writing. She may be reached at acf0045@unt.edu.