OLIVER Cromwell was a terrible, and terribly talented, man. Back in the 1600’s he was a revolutionary who helped to overthrow, and execute, the British king, Charles I. At that point he was all in favor of freedom and liberty. Then he became a dictator and dictated. After he died Charles II, the son of the dead king, regained the throne. He executed some of those who killed his father. However, Cromwell had died. So his bones were dug up and disgraced. It was the best that could be done.
I repeat: Oliver was savage, mean, bigoted, etc. Yet he changed England forever. He moved it to be more of a republic, with a symbolic king, who then could not rule tyrannically. Oliver once had his portrait painted and the artiest eliminated some facial defects. Oliver told him to paint him correctly, “warts and all.” I do not know which Oliver (the tyrant or the liberator) the British now recognize. My point is that there were, in essence, two Olivers. One could argue that the good outweighs the bad, or vice versa. One might have difficulty deciding.
Oliver was part of the ruling class, under the king, and a member of the Church of England, of which the king was the head. So when he rebelled he was a double traitor, to his king and to his “god,” violating, probably, several serious oaths.
In case you have not noticed much of Oliver’s life can apply to George Washington. George applied for, and received, a commission in (this is not a misprint) the royal navy. He changed his mind at the last moment, but he did fight FOR Great Britain in the French and Indian War (which he began by mistake). He had affirmed some kind of loyalty to England, the King and the Church of England. That is, he risked his life to help the British Empire become stronger. Later, of course, he decided that his solemn oath were, well… inconvenient, and could be nullified by a whim.
This disloyal status and choice applies to many, if not all, of the Founding Fathers. They were traitors, Free Masons (which may explain the treason), tax evaders (no one is all bad), actual criminals, and tolerant of slavery. They established a nation where women, Catholics and poor people could not vote, somehow calling this the “consent of the people.”
John Adams speculated that only one third of America supported the Revolution. The rest favored England or were neutral. When the war was over the loyalists fled, lest they be killed by the people who established a government dedicated to peace, equality and justice.
Being human none of the people in American history was morally perfect. Because the famous are studied more (which is what “famous” means) their sins are more well known, and may appear to be worse. “If, Thou, oh Lord should record inequities, who could endure it?”
My conclusion is this. We first pick our prejudice, and then pretend that it can be rationally supported. Listing the defects of Americans, original or contemporary, is easy, and can be fun. The official and unofficial (and sinful) heroes of the American “Civil War” are being officially degraded. Their statues are being removed. The justification seems to be that those who supported the Confederacy automatically supported slavery, as practiced in some parts of the USA.
As with much of America, I see the problem as silly, and profoundly ironic. Retroactively to punish Southerners gives them a paradoxical post facto victory. Lincoln said that his victorious policy towards them would be “Malice towards none and with charity towards all.” The statue haters utterly betray Lincoln and those Union soldiers who died to enforce his will and philosophy. The fall of Robert Lee’s statue gives him the final victory over the Union President.