The statue in question is of Robert E Lee. Here's what he said about slavery in a letter to President Franklin Pierce

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things."

The latter part reflects feelings at the time that the blacks were uncivilised and that it was the white man's duty to elevate them, particularly through Christianity. In fact, General Lee's letter goes on to recommend emancipation through a more gradual and benign process of Christian influence, rather than "fiery insurrection."

But the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. That was just a propaganda point to create goodies and baddies. Slavery was fast becoming economically unviable due to advances in agricultural technology anyway, and would not have outlasted the Civil War by more than a few years. The real grievance the South had with the North was the change in governmental structure from a decentralised collection of largely autonomous states, to a central authority with power over the states. The latter was a departure from the American founding fathers' concept of the role of central government in the USA, as the South saw it. One must admit that the South had a point. Today's USA has laws abridging freedom of speech, gun control, search and seizure without reasonable cause and denial of due process, so the North started as it meant to go on.

Regarding the recent demonstration, a couple of posters above have put up a straw man about the Right wing protesters being all Nazis. There is a range of views on the political right. Some are

White advocacy - people who encourage and seek to preserve white cultures and look out for the interests of white people. Not dissimilar to other racial advocacy groups.
White nationalism - people who want to live in a wholly or predominantly white community, or even nation. They tend to want to go their own way and just be left alone to organise their society as they wish, rather than having it "enriched" by people who insist they know better. Again, similar views occur with other groups like Israel, Liberia and the Amish.
White supremacy - people who believe the white race is superior to other races. They often cite, quite fairly, the achievements of European Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment as evidence, although how much this was to do with race rather than social structures is debatable. Biological arguments for the superiority of any race are usually based on value judgements rather than objective advantages.
Nazis - even within this group, there is considerable variation. Hermann Göring explained this very well at Nuremberg: there was a range of views among the Nazi party leadership. Modern Nazis are likewise. Some think of Nazism as a cult-like religion and venerate Hitler in a kind of mystical way. Some just like the anti jewish bit and aren't fussed about the rest. Others merely see merit in National Socialism as a way to order the economics and social structure of a society.

Then there are people, not necessarily white, who are uneasy at history being erased and rewritten. This was, as all here doubtless recall, Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth in 1984.

It's very important that all these groups have their say and do their marching and demonstrating. Some only succeed in making themselves look unpleasant or silly. Others highlight valid points. This is a neat thing about freedom of speech: it's self regulating, carrying its own punishments and rewards.

The other side, Antifa, concerns me much more. Their name is a misnomer because they are not anti fascist. They are anti anything that deviates from extremist authoritarian Leftism. Again, there is a range of views among them. Some are nasty thugs who just want a punch up and feel safe doing it in a big crowd. Some are embittered, emotionally damaged people working out their (usually self) hatred in a convenient way. Some hate white people and want to make them suffer: don't worry, it's not racist persecution, it's social justice. Some are genuinely committed communist subversives who will use violence to achieve their goals. And what do we call groups who use violence to achieve a political goal? Yes, terrorists.

So, long story short (too late), I should be the Führer and I'll sort everything out and get the buses and trains running on time.