Like I said, slavery was the biggest antagonizing factor in the Civil War, but my point is there were other factors such as state's rights and the fact that the south felt they had no say in the election of Abraham Lincoln. I also believe that the southerners felt they had no need of the North and it's industry, while the North needed them and their agriculture, but I admit I don't have any evidence on me to back that up.

I'd like to say that while the war was arguably over slavery, certain individuals on both sides differed on the topic. IIRC, Robert E. Lee mainly fought for the Confederacy to defend Virginia, and he freed his inherited (he had bought none) slaves during the war in 1862 (although the topics of slavery and emancipation would cast a shadow over him for the rest of his life and onward). The Northern figure U.S. Grant jumped at the chance to fight with the Union (which was pro-abolition), but owned slaves as well and didn't free his until 1865. Even when it comes to those who participated in the war, nothing seems to be purely black and white. Neither of them can be considered entirely good not evil; that is the case with war.

I did my best to fact check this but sorry if I got something wrong: http://www.snopes.com/confederate-history-slave-ownership/

The case I'm trying to make is that the whole war was a huge mess that haunts us to this day, but we should not ignore it nor it's participants. In the case of Robert E. Lee, I feel he serves as a reminder that a man (or woman), as honorable as he (or she) may strive to be or be considered by his peers, is ultimately human and subjected to having great inner demons. To others he is a symbol of the Confederacy and a reminder of slavery. For U.S. Grant, I'm indifferent but I'm sure he strikes a message into the hearts of others as well.

Also, I don't think I should have to say this but I do not condone slavery or support the Confederacy by any means. I merely feel that it deserves a deeper analysis that what most people give it.