[Eternal_Bear]

Actually St louis is not a good place for a Confederate monument as the city was a stronghold for Unionists during the Civil War. In fact, St louis kept Missouri in the Union. Southern Missouri is a far better place for Confederate monuments.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"St louis kept Missouri in the Union."

Actually, Missouri did secede. The legislature assembled a quorum in Springfield and the governor signed it.

[hanamizu]

Southern Missouri is a far better place for Confederate monuments.

---

Actually, southern Missouri was not a natural place for slavery—think Ozarks. Central and Northern Missouri were more suitable for slave-based agriculture. That said, there is a push in Cape Girardeau (I don’t know how big a push, just a letter in the paper) demanding that our little Confederate memorial stone be removed from view. It sits in the courthouse park next to a much larger statue of a Union soldier.

[x]

Actually St louis is not a good place for a Confederate monument as the city was a stronghold for Unionists during the Civil War. In fact, St louis kept Missouri in the Union.

True. The German population was especially loyal to the union, and this made them unpopular with Confederate sympathizers. But for the Germans, Missouri might well have seceded.

Southern Missouri is a far better place for Confederate monuments.

There were a lot of Confederate supporters in the boot heel of southeast Missouri. But even more further north and west along the Missouri. You might think it was too far north for slavery, but it wasn't. It also had a lot to do with where people had come from.

Harry Truman's family in northeastern Missouri were Confederate sympathizers. Jesse James came from nearby and carried out his private war even after Appomattox.