It's rather odd that some people don't realize someone can be both a good commander and a bad person at the same time. Lee was a traitor, but he was also a good (if overrated) commander. Attacking him is great, even neccessary, but attacks should be as accurate as possible.

Also, I see this with a lot of other military figures (ie Napoleon and German WW2 commanders), not just Lee. In an incredibly valid attempt to push back against bad historical narratives, people often overcorrect the historical narrative and attack figures for the wrong reasons.

The historical narrative often needs correcting, it should just be done in a more factual way. A fact-based approach gives less opportunity for believable push-back from bad faith actors and makes for a overall more compelling argument.

Also, this thread is more focused on popular interpretations of historical narrative. Good historians always approach historical narratives in a factual manner, it's just when those reinterpretations reach general audiences that they lose grounding in historical evidence.