Grant vs. Lee

Right after the civil war, Lee was held in high regards because he was the "underdog", a symbol of the south's struggle to gain seccession. A big part of his celebrity status as the underdog was due to the fact there were alot of books written right after the civil war and most documenters of that time were from the south , therefore supporters the south's "antebellum ideals".

Basically, the south will rise again! and all that jazz.

The good ol' boys.

Meanwhile, while Lee was personified as the underdog and savior of the southern cause (even though it failed), the same antebellum writers were taking the disappointment of losing the war out on Grant. They were personifying him as a drunkard and a butcher.

Once the civil rights movement happened during the 1950's and 1960's, the roles of the good guy/bad guy changed between the two generals. With the rights and fair treatment of blacks being pushed, Grant became the popular one and Lee was seen as the scoundrel. Why is this? Grant was being called the savior of the slaves, etc. because he was fighting for the Union, therefore for the termination of the slave era.

Lee was seen as a defender of the antebellum south and was put in a bad light.

It is interesting how we can interpret history based on current events, like in the changing of favor between Lee and Grant. It has the chance of switching again. Could this be applied to the Nation's disapproval of Bush and the War on Terrorism? Will we end up supporting it again later on down the road? Unfortunately, in my opinion, that will only happen if another terrorist attack happened on US soil and I don't want to see that day.