We know it is not
ALMOST CERTAIN IT IS NOT
Reportedly, This lone Union statue was the only Civil War monument that the City of Baltimore officially endorsed and paid for. (Which raises an interesting question. If it was paid for by the City of Baltimore using taxpayers funds, shouldn't the removal of this statue been a decision made by the taxpaying voters of this community)? Rules. Who needs rules, laws, and dare we be so bold to bring up a silly insignificant issue like HISTORY, when the real issue involves hurt feelings by a disgruntled segment of the city's overall population.
“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible." Pelosi
How brave of Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrat colleagues walking this line of defense for their African American
"Whether looking at a Confederate statue or a Harriett Tubman statue, aren't they both a reminder of slavery?"
Since some were offended by the confederate statues and some are offended by the thought of replacing them with statues of Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, wouldn't that be a double standard? Taking down statues which you don't like, those which you find "reprehensible," and replacing them with statues you (claim) to like. (Not necessarily like, but if it will breathe one gust of life-giving breath into your political 'cult's unconscious corpse, you will willingly pinch your nose closed, put on a fake smile, and condescend, all the way back to a mirage-like, leadership position). We would refer to this pathway as the Yellow Brick Road, but then we might be offending yet another race of constituents.
Speaking of OFFENSIVE.....