Lennon and King were morally complex figures who have been sanctified and Lee and Columbus were morally complex characters who have been demonized. “Very well,” one could say, “the formers’ failings were personal, and the latter advanced injustice.” But this is a 2026 lens – if moral standards evolve back to a more Victorian prism, personal shame and dishonor could be considered worse than one who made history-changing discoveries in a more brutal age, or a brilliant general and a worthy adversary and one who fought honorably for his country (or, if you deny the legitimacy of the Confederacy, his homeland) to the point of making the agonizing decision to leave the service of the U.S. to defend his fatherland (patria – pater, father, -ia locative suffix). I’m not saying fly the battle flag, I certainly don’t, and it’s historically and morally better that the Union won, but some of the stories you hear about Lee’s character would make Livy blush.

About Romel: it would be legitimate to admire his generalship and thus him as a general, but keep in mind World War 2 is still in living memory. In a century, in a world where honor and national service supersede one’s cause, I can see some less culpable Nazi figures not being as radioactive, at least – but that’s not the point. I’m not a WWII buff but I’m not aware of anything about Romel’s reputation that makes him infamous besides his being a Nazi, especially as a minor figure. I’m talking about historical figures whose reputation has been burnished or trashed retroactively purely as a result of the vicissitudes of contemporary morality

Hitler certainly didn’t have any redeeming features besides being kind to animals.