How is Baltimore’s jail complex with slave history any less offensive than Confederate monuments?

I am somewhat confused after reading this article, which deals with a decision to preserve parts of the old Baltimore jail complex (“State to push forward with $27 million demolition of Baltimore jail — while saving some historic buildings,” Oct. 2). Baltimore’s former mayor, in the middle of the night, had numerous statues memorializing the Confederacy removed from public sight.

I understand that those statues caused members of the community to recall the terrible days of slavery. But in today’s article, it is mentioned that several of the old buildings may be retained for their historical value, specifically mentioning the warden’s office, where slaves and those who helped them were processed for incarceration.

Just as the statues of those who fought to preserve slavery may have caused some people pain, certainly the center for processing those slaves must have the same effect. And yet, we preserve one while removing the other. I am confused. If the statues cause hurt, and must go, why should the building that also represents slavery remain?

Bob Di Stefano, Abingdon

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.