This, I just have to disagree with. The South didn't secede over states rights, they seceded over slavery. Idolizing men who fought and lost to keep a large portion of our population enslaved is repugnant. The statues should've never been erected, but considering how this country acted immediately after the civil war ended, that people thought it a good idea to create them isn't surprising at all.
I have no problem with historical exhibits on the site of major historical events. I used to be a history major, and that kind of stuff I find important to teach the younger generations. It's the rest of the junk that has been added to it that needs to go. A statue of General Lee serves no purpose other than to give racists something to look up to.
Now this is a bit off-topic, but it came to mind and I thought it a similar enough story to mention. I read an article a couple years back about a woman who worked as a tour guide at a historical plantation house. She had numerous stories of white people getting angry with her for telling the truth of what happened in that house on their tours. Some people tried to rationalize away the depravity of it all. I explicitly remember her mentioning one woman said to her,"Well, they treated them well. Weren't they happy with that?" I think her response back was,"Would you be?" In which she received no response.
I bring that up because some people see movies like the 2016 version of Birth of a Nation, or 12 Years a Slave, and think it's just a Hollywood exaggeration of what really happened. It wasn't that bad. These are the same people who fight for "Southern Pride", and claim they aren't a racist. Who think removing a statue somehow diminishes them in some way.