Robert E. Lee
- Lincoln offered to let the South have slaves forever (Constitutional Amendment), if the South came back. He was also a racist and an anti-Semite (along with Grant). 
- Robert E. Lee was actually against slavery (maybe more so than Lincoln).  Lee gave up his slaves before the war, Grant kept his until the end.
- Arlington National Cemetery was named that way, because that's what Robert E. Lee called it, before the U.S. government stole it from him. He sued and won, and then sold it back for millions (in today's money). So it's a tribute to his victory over the U.S. government. 
So how was Lee fighting for slavery when he had personally given it up, and he could have kept slavery if he gave up the war, yet he fought on? Lee fought for southern independence, and the Constitution, not slavery. It was not technically a civil war, since that's a fight for control of one country, the South didn't want to control the North, they just wanted independence from it, like they were promised they could have at any time, when they ratified the Constitution.
|Robert E. Lee||To the left, Lincoln (and his General Grant) was a great guy that ended Slavery. Lee was the guy that opposed it. In this 4th grade view of the world, Lee personifies slavery, and anyone that would put up a Statue to pay tribute to Lee, or not demand the removal and denounce him, must be a pro-Slavery racist bigot (they're everywhere, be very afriad).||The informed know that Lincoln offered to let the South keep slaves if they came back. Lee had given up his slaves at the beginning of the war, and denounced the institution. (Grant kept his slaves to the end). We owe Arlington National Cemetery to Lee: do we need to destroy that too? And the war of Southern Independence was a lot more complex than just slavery... and sadly, the Constitution lost.|
The Democrats waste our time with gender-neutral bathrooms and tearing down 100-year-old Civil War statues. People couldn't care less about these issues. They care about the things that matter. But this is a litmus test to see how gullible the public is, and ripe for inciting to revolution. Because if they had a clue about the nuances of history for those things they hate, they'd have a harder time being against it, and riling up the gullible.
Remember the basics: if the North wanted to end slavery, they could have made that deal, but they refused (lookup Compensated Emancipation). They could have agreed to buy all slaves (pay for the slaves freedom) as had happened in the UK and elsewhere, and that would have avoided the civil war and freed the slaves too.
❝ Slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country ❞
So the argument against Lee because "Slavery" is based on impassioned ignorance, and proof why we need the statue. The point is this is a lot more complex for the informed than the Democrat activists. Many of us disagree with slavery but recognize that Lee fought better and more honorably (for the wrong cause) than the North did (aka Sherman). If we must tear down Lee's statue, then certainly Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and more should come down too.
Even famous TV cars from the Dukes of Hazard TV show are enough to trigger a meltdown of the snowflakes.