Antietam National Battlefield, located in Sharpsburg, Md., is the site of the bloodiest single-day battle in U.S. history. | Rob Carr/AP Photo Lawmakers urge removal of Robert E. Lee statue at Antietam Critics say the statue is historically inaccurate and an attempt to sanitize his support for the Confederacy.

Amid the national firestorm over Civil War monuments, Maryland lawmakers are pressing the National Park Service to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee that some view as an egregious attempt to sanitize Confederate history.

And key House Democrats are threatening legislation if the Park Service won’t act on its own to take down the statue at Antietam National Battlefield, site of the bloodiest single-day battle in U.S. history.


“The history of this piece, which now resides on this sacred ground, certainly makes it clear it was recently erected by a private citizen out of pro-Confederacy enthusiasm and not to provide historical context or under the direction of a battlefield historian,” said Democratic Rep. John Delaney, whose congressional district includes Sharpsburg, where the 1862 battle took place. “I don’t think that taxpayer resources should serve that end.”

The congressman said the statue “should be taken down” and vowed to “review what legislative proposals already exist in that regard and proceed accordingly.”

Added House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, dean of the Maryland congressional delegation: “Congress must exhaust all legislative options and act to remove these statues where appropriate.”

Maryland's two Democratic senators, Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, have reached out to the Congressional Research Service and the Park Service for more information about the Lee statue, according to Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky. Cardin voiced support this week for separate efforts in Baltimore to remove Confederate statues in the city.

Lawmakers and historians say the Lee statue at Antietam is not a piece of history but a recent attempt by an eccentric Maryland millionaire, William F. Chaney, to rewrite Confederate history and Lee's own views.

Chaney outbid the Park Service for land adjacent to Antietam, and in 2003 erected a giant statue of Lee sitting atop his horse. Chaney later sold the land to the federal government — including the statue of Lee, who he claimed was his ancestor, complete with a plaque offering a whitewashed take on the Confederate commander’s views.

Lee “was personally against secession and slavery,” the plaque reads, “but decided his duty was to fight for his home and the universal right of every people to self-determination.”

While Lee wrote an 1861 letter expressing opposition to secession, he clearly supported it with his actions. He turned down an offer to lead Union troops and instead joined the Confederacy, becoming the chief military commander in a four-year rebellion that would claim more American lives than any war before or since.

Lee's personal views on slavery are still debated fiercely. Defenders of Lee often point to a letter he wrote his wife calling slavery a "moral & political evil." Lee added, though, that slavery was "a greater evil to the white man than to the black race.” He ordered the beatings of his own slaves, some of whom he freed in 1862. Lee also oversaw a Confederate army that captured escaped slaves and put them to work or returned them to their former masters. Confederate commanders under Lee treated black prisoners of war with unique cruelty, refusing to consider them legitimate Union soldiers and sometimes executing them on the spot.

Chaney could not be reached for comment. In 2003, he told The Washington Times he erected the statue to correct what he saw as an imbalance between Union and Confederate statues at Antietam. There are 96 monuments on Park Service property there, the vast majority of which honor the Union.

“It represents all the Southern boys who fought on the bloodiest day in American history,” Chaney said at the time. “They need to be represented, too.”

The statue’s history problems go beyond what’s written on its plaque, according to Tom Clemens, a historian who leads the Save Historic Antietam Foundation, which buys and preserves land around the battlefield.

The statue is located in a spot where Lee “did nothing more than drive by” in a wagon ambulance, Clemens said. Lee’s hands were injured prior to the battle, “so he was not riding a horse holding the reins, nor was he holding binoculars, as the monument depicts.” Clemens’ group has suggested moving the monument to places on the battlefield that he says would be more appropriate, such as the spot where Lee set up his headquarters.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“It has no real historical basis in anything except that this guy was a big fan of Robert E. Lee and wanted to put up his own statue to essentially venerate his hero,” Clemens said.

The Park Service is somewhat hamstrung when it comes to moving or altering monuments, which are governed by a number of complex laws and regulations. Not to mention that the Park Service ultimately answers to President Donald Trump, who this week voiced opposition to efforts across the country to take down Confederate statues.

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

National Park Service spokesman Tom Crosson declined to specifically address the Lee statue at Antietam, but suggested the Park Service did not have plans to remove or alter monuments unless directed to do so by Congress.

“Many commemorative works including monuments and markers were specifically authorized by Congress,” Crosson said in an email. “In other cases, a monument may have preceded the establishment of a park, and thus could be considered a protected park resource and value. In either of these situations, legislation could be required to remove the monument.

“Still other monuments, while lacking legislative authorization, may have existed in parks long enough to qualify as historic features,” he continued. “Unless directed by legislation, it is the policy of the National Park Service that these works and their inscriptions will not be altered, relocated, obscured, or removed, even when they are deemed inaccurate or incompatible with prevailing present-day values.”

However, Crosson also acknowledged the director of the Park Service can make exceptions and act on his own if he so chooses.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans declined to discuss the Antietam statue, saying the group was too overwhelmed with requests for comments on monuments across the country.

Allen Sullivant, an active member of the group in Tennessee whose contact information is listed on its website, said he has never heard of a battlefield removing a statue once the statue has been accepted.

“If the Park Service bought it knowing the statue was on it, it’s not going to go anywhere,” said Sullivant, who emphasized that he was offering his personal opinion and was not acting as a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The Maryland lawmakers who want the statue removed are “just mouthing,” Sullivant said. “It’s the current topic so they feel like they have to say something.”

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are at least 1,503 Confederate symbols in public spaces in the United States. This includes at least 700 monuments and statues, the vast majority of which are in the South, with huge concentrations in Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina.