Um, sorry, Lee owned slaves, and Grant didn't. Grant was from Illinois, which was a free state.
Actually Grant did own slaves, that part is true. Both by inheritance and acquisition, in Missouri. Grant was in fact the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner.
>> In 1855, Grant farmed on his brother-in-law's property near St. Louis, using slaves owned by Julia's father.
[82] The farm was not successful and to earn a living he sold firewood on St. Louis street corners.
[83] Earning only $50 a month (equivalent to $1,340 in 2018), wearing his faded army jacket, an unkempt Grant desperately looked for work.
[84] The next year, the Grants moved to land on Julia's father's farm, and built a home called "Hardscrabble" on
Grant's Farm. Julia disliked the
rustic house, which she described as an "unattractive cabin".
[85] The
Panic of 1857devastated farmers, including Grant, who pawned his gold watch to pay for Christmas.
[86] In 1858, Grant rented out Hardscrabble and moved his family to Julia's father's
850-acre plantation that used slave labor.
[87] That fall, after a bout of
malaria, Grant retired from farming.
[88]
The same year, Grant acquired a slave from his father-in-law, a thirty-five-year-old man named William Jones.
[89] In March 1859, Grant freed William, worth about $1,500, instead of selling him at a time when he needed money.
[90] << -- Wiki
So although I'm not sure how Grant got in here, a deflection no doubt, but both of them owned slaves, the Googly Image graphic is still wrong, but that's what happens when some wag tries to make a bullshit point using user-generated graphics where anyone can write anything the want.
I guess this Grant deflection from the OP is yet another attempt to redefine the monument removals in terms of "waah, they owned slaves" instead of facing the actual dynamics, which are shall we say inconvenient.