Disclaimer: I'm a northerner who's only exposure to confederacy has been Dukes of Hazzard shows when i was a kid and ty later career kid rock songs. I didn't grow up with the aura or alternate history. What i've been reading lately is that there maybe another side of Lee than what i was taught 25 years ago. When we were in school all confederate soldiers were horrible people that owned, beat, and sold slaves. Light wikipedia reading, ok, more like skimming, says he leaned towards the north and reluctantly went along with his state seceding. Other comments i've read said he freed his families slaves prior to the civil war. His legacy grew after his death, especially in northern states. Everything on the internet is to be taken with a grain of salt.
My point is, i get the difference between monuments of Washington and Lee. Mainly, that George was on the winning team.
But is the hatred of Lee's statues because of his treatment to slaves? Because it sounds like a lot of America's "hero's" were die hard slave fans. Was it because the victors write history?
What makes Lee's statues worth protesting either for or against but Crazy Horse and the like's do not receive such fanfare?