Wouldn't it be nice to allow history to be history? We have huge problems in Baltimore, so why must we waste time arguing over statues that hardly anyone notices ("Rawlings-Blake delays decision on Confederate memorials," Sept. 15)? I have studied the Civil War, and it's a fact that Maryland and Baltimore were divided. One faction wanted to join the Confederate States of America and the other was just as determined to remain in the Union. I believe leaving the statues in place and adding educational, interpretive signs is the ideal solution, not just a temporary one.
As a descendant of a Civil War veteran who fought for the Union, the kerfuffle over these statues is painful. His side paid a huge price to keep our nation united, and we must never forget the sacrifice. I've led discussions on Civil War poetry and understand both sides — the reasons for going to war were enormous. I hope to be leading a "Civil War poetry slam" soon at the President Street Station to demonstrate the depths of these emotions.
Baltimore has been given a wonderful opportunity, if only our leaders could see it. Because of our city's divided role in the Civil War, we could utilize the statues as a way to instruct — not just on the horrors of that war, but about the causes leading up to it. This is what I would like to see happen. What I don't want is to have my tax money spent on costly removals or destruction of these monuments. We need to stop trying to bury American history because parts of it are painful. No, oftentimes discomfort is the best teacher of all!
Rosalind E. Heid, Baltimore