Sure, and if you don't have some understanding of who a Confederate soldier actually was, then you have little bases for recognizing how their lives were affected, or ended, by a war that they would have been just as happy not to fight. Germans should mourn the loss of a generation of young, and not so young men, who were mostly sent to their slaughter by those in command and had nothing to do with the Holocaust directly or were caught up in a nationalist surge that cost them their lives and brought shame upon their nation.
That’s generous at best. Part of the enduring narrative about the Civil War is one brother choosing to fight for the South and the other leaving to fight for the Union. People who fought for the South knew what they were fighting for. Southern propaganda didn’t shy away from pro-slavery until after the war was over.
I think that one major problem with seeing the Civil War through the eyes of today's standards, is we have had 150+ years of history that followed it which has exacerbated the divide between north and south further. If you look at the immigration patterns of the country in its earliest days, heavy settlement into the south (outside of Virginia, the Carolinas, and a few other spots) was a relatively recent event. It didn't really start until the 1790s (Cumberland Gap) in the deep south, and continued as the lands continued to open up. Most of it was far after that. Only a few folks had made it to Texas in the 1830s and 1840s. Arkansas settlement didn't really start until the 1820s and 1830s. MS and AL a bit earlier. It was settled in the earliest days by a lot of soldiers who had land grants from their service in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Let's add in the Irish influx from the 1840s to the mix, although most of them stayed up north. God help me, I've been in TX for 25 years now. 25 years prior to the Civil War is 1836. That just isn't a long time for the rank and file settler to have "southern roots" as we perceive them today beyond the land they're farming or the mercantile business they've set up.
My point being that opinions now are informed by toothless, accented rubes with Trump flags that we have watched on TV or social media, when the country in 1860 was just as likely--north or south-- to be populated by toothless, Scots-Irish accented rubes who just wanted to farm their land and not be killed by the Indians who wanted it back. They were soldiers or sons of soldiers who had fought for independence or fought the Brits or the Mexicans. They were Americans, and that is the tragedy.
It's not simply an "enduring narrative" that the south wasn't all on the same page. There were prominent Unionists among them. My great great grandfather was in a Unionist family in Mississippi and he was named after a very prominent Unionist politician from the state. But once that vote for succession happened, it wasn't like they were going to catch a plane to New York. The were reasonably well-to-do prior to the war, and had nothing after it. I also had kin in Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas (ugh) at the time-- states that were very divided. Only the ones in Missouri had a pot to piss in.
So when I go to graveyards around Texas and see the little CSA flags on a few of them, I don't think they should be vandalized or lectured to and called a traitor by some 20 year old woke dweeb who was lucky to not be born in that time. I think it's sad that they had to live through that shit, that they had to die in it, or that they had to live with what they witnessed and die later. They should absolutely be honored in some capacity on Memorial Day. As said previously, I don't see what good it does these days to continue to have a different Memorial Day. If we're all Americans, it logically follows that the honoring should be on the same day.
But then again, I don't live in AL or MS so I really don't give a shit what they choose to do.