Yes, the Democrats will have to re-examine their heroes from the past, and decide which features still make them "heroic". For example, Andrew Jackson's fame was as an "Indian Fighter" - in those days, he had conflict with home-boy Davy Crockett, who went west to some place called "The Alamo". Jackson and Crockett feuded in home-state Tennessee over how Jackson had treated the natives. I'm guessing Crockett will look a lot better now.

Republican William Henry Harrison also gained fame as an "Indiana Fighter", but he isn't much of a hero these days.

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these idiots destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for slavery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were traitors.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned slaves. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them traitors.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a traitor.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

"They were complaining about Northern states not following the law."

. . . because the law was wrong. In general, the law during Jim Crow required 'coloreds' to use separate water fountains and bathrooms, to ride in the back of the bus, to attend less funded, segregated schools, to be refrained from seeking higher education, to marry outside their race (forget that that bottle was uncorked due the commonplace of rape of black women by their previously legal slave owners).

The law previous to the above required freedom seeking escaped slaves to be returned to their 'masters.' You seem to think that being a law makes that law right. How do you feel about the English tax laws that resulted in the Boston tea party? On which side do you cast your allegiance?

You must be aware that the space race was won in no small part to the contribution of brilliant mathematically gifted women of color who manually confirmed trajectories that not only propelled John Glenn into space, but supported our efforts to land a man on the moon (or, perhaps you believe that the space program was just another trumpian hoax).

So, what, exactly, are you trying to say in your post?

Caruso