destroying monuments is like burning books, OB.
...
A monument is not necessarily a state sanctioning anyone or anything. Maybe it could be, but history does not have to do that. At any rate, if we have no record of the past, and no deep-based understanding of what our past has been, we are doomed to our present evils, with no means of making any kind of improvement.
Books and similar texts are for recording the past. Monuments are meant specifically to glorify (or rarely, condemn). You won't find a monument to the Emoluments clause or the Commerce clause of the Constitution. No one creates a monument for the quartermaster who successfully arranges the delivery of goods. There is no monument to the 1940 re-election campaign of FDR. Any knowledge of these things comes from reading.
I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, at some level. This argument is so disingenuous, it feels almost unreal. I'll put it this way: I never see people gather in protest by the thousands a high school replaces one history test with another. To me, that is because monuments are not like books, and not supposed to be like books.
This is America. Everyone gets to make monuments.
Agreed. Go make your own monument of Forrest, and put it on your own land. No one will interfere. I sure won't care.