Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on.  Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on.  U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.

They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.

The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy.  (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)

History is big.  There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize.  There are many people, with many stories.  With this, we could step sideways.

(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay.  After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)

However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity.  I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.

It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either.  It doesn’t like the United States of America.  

It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding.  But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.