He said slavery harmed whites and blacks alike, and even went as far as saying it harmed whites MORE. That depends on whether one thinks a person is harmed more by learning immorality as a birthright FROM birth or by involuntary servitude, being subject to vicious beatings and having ones children sold to strangers in another state. Yet an argument can be made, particularly to those who believe their existence on Earth is just an infinitesimal part of their whole existence.

Nonetheless, Lee not only fought for the Confederacy, but LED those who did, despite hating slavery and secession as much as he loved the Union: Not because he loved the Union less, but because he loved Virginia more. Let us not pretend that was an easy choice nor all about slavery (when it was at all.) Rather than take the Confederacys loyalty oath, Sam Houston resigned as governor of the state HE led in a SUCCESSFUL war of independence and then twice served as president: Because he loved the Union more (and because he knew the Civil War would ruin Texas and the rest of the South.) It is easy to condemn treason; it is hard to condemn a man forced to choose between two great conflicting loyalties.

Seriously, how can a fellow native Southerner even debate this? Should we get rid of Mardi Gras, jazz and blues because they are symbols of the South, and therefore slavery and rebellion? Or is there more to the South than just slavery and a rebellion 150 years ago and segregation 100 years after that?