Washington and Jefferson also led violent rebellions against their lawful rulers; and at the time slavery had already been outlawed in England in 1772. They believed themselves to be right as well. The primary difference is that they succeeded. Lee was also deeply respected by his contemporaries on both sides of the divide.

I don't think there is any fear of making assumptions about who was the attacker, or any doubt about the unacceptable status of the KKK or neo-nazi groups or their sympathizers. We are seeing an unprecedented and well deserved public backlash against all these groups - they cannot get website, hotel rooms or other even tertiary support for their causes. This is exactly as it should be.

But even in his abject lunacy he is right IMO about the inconsistency on the topic of how we view our past, and I find it kind of weird that people are so quick to want to protect the status of other figures like Jefferson or Washington in light of that.

Anyway that was what I found interesting about his tirade.