You really want to do this? OK.<quoted text>
Ah - so by your logic
The Soviets deserve respect because they were victorious in creating an empire during the late 40's and 50's by beating down and threatening their neighbors.
The Nazis, had things gone a different path, would have been given your respect.
Communist China's Mao deserves our respect for being victorious in his bloody take over of China and the crushing fist he held over its citizens for decades for any dissent.
I see - onlky the victorious deserves respect, respect cannot be given anyone of character and honor, no matter the fact they fought on an opposing side.
Jackson and Lee deserve respect for the men they were, not for the uniform the wore.
Even though Grant was victorious - it was only because Lee was a gentleman and a patriot, and decided it would be best for his men and country to surrender then, rather than drag it out in a guerrilla war for another 10 years or more, which would have devastated both sides.
Grant may have been elected President, mainly due to his win of the Civil war, but he was no man of character, nor of honor. His presidency was rife with problems, corruption, and more.
There was much of Lincoln to be honored but he was not the shining man of integrity that history has painted him. His choice to free slaves had nothing to do with a "personal belief to free the negro", but was more of him doing what he felt was needed to win the war. He stated as much in the early days of the war.
He stated that if he could win the war without freeing a single Negro - he would. If he could win the war by freeing some and not others, he would. It was about winning, not right or wrong.
That's the point here - you are giving glory for something that was not real and didn't exist.
1) Lincoln's top priority was keeping the nation intact. He was also strongly opposed to slavery, but freeing slaves was not his top priority. Freeing slaves ended up a tactic to serve his number one objective.
Still he got Emancipation done. And we collectively are better off for being one nation since 1865. So Lincoln prevailing was a big plus.
2) Your fantasy journey into hypothetical Soviet and Nazi glory misses the point. Lincoln's vision was that the Union survive as one nation. And we are blessed indeed his vision prevailed.
Confronting the enemies we faced in the 100 years following Lincoln (three of which you cited) was much easier because there was one United States, not two or more nations on this continent.
3) Holding up leaders as somehow superior for "Christian" virtues is always a curious exercise.
Lee and Stonewall Jackson might well have held heartfelt spiritual beliefs. But you don't become a general of an army being an altar boy.
In the 19th century, the United States had a reprehensible policy of treating native Americans justly, forcing them from their land and repeatedly breaking treaties. The US armies were the muscle behind oppressing the Indians. Lee and Jackson were a party to that.
They might have been the two best moral examples among top leadership in their day. But their morality was, at best, cafeteria style. There's no record I'm aware of that either of them spoke up on behalf of merely living up to the treaties the US signed.
This injustice escalated after your two Generals left the stage. But it was ongoing throughout the century; shove the Indians away whenever expedient.
Nobody called U.S. Grant an altar boy, but he never claimed to be. The lack of hypocrisy around his legacy is a refreshing contrast to the more "religious" figures of the era.