During the early 1950s, public opinion polls revealed that blacks were generally optimistic that their condition would improve markedly within a short time. From 1947 to 1954, according to a United States Census study, the median income of black families more than doubled, while increasing numbers of blacks attended college. Yet those gains were largely confined to the black middle class, who were also the main supporters of such established and “traditional” civil rights organizations as the NUL and the NAACP (Some critics remarked that the second acronym stood for the “National Association for the Advancement of Certain people”). Within the South, however, there were signs that a more militant black leadership was emerging that was also beginning to attract mass support.
In 1952, the Regional Council of Negro Leadership (RCNL), led by T. R. M. Howard , a black surgeon, entrepreneur, and planter, organized a successful boycott of gas stations in Mississippi that refused to provide restrooms for blacks. Through the RCNL, Howard led campaigns to expose brutality by the Mississippi state highway patrol and to encourage blacks to make deposits in the black-owned Tri-State Bank of Nashville which, in turn, gave loans to civil rights activists who were victims of a "credit squeeze" by the White Citizens' Councils . 
No! The argument is not valid! The issue is not whether there is someone somewhere who has been “offended” by a particular monument. If someone is offended by a monument to the abolition of slavery because they believe that slavery is condoned by the Bible, that is not a reason to remove the monument. Now I get that it’s not always easy to identify a reason that a particular monument or statue is erected, but when the conditions surrounding the erection of the Confederate monuments is examined, it becomes pretty clear that the reason is that they represent an “FU” to the principle that all citizens are equal.