re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

Clearly there was a lot more than just slavery at play here. Yes, the south was a totally slave based economy and wished to preserve it, but they were also dissatisfied with the northern industrial cronyism that was paid for by everyone else, including the south, that saw little direct benefit from these programs.

---

Well....the slavers were in hock to the north. They owed a shite load of money they didn’t want to pay back. They didn’t have credit cards but they lived like they did. Secession was a way to just walk away from that debt. That happened in the Revolution also. In 1783 the amount of money owed to Great Britain was TWENTY TIMES the amount of money in circulation. Of course the Brits amassed that debt through their Mercantilism policies that required trade only within the empire, restricted what the American colonists could export if it interfered with British manufactures and so on.

Still, the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolution required that all that money be paid back to British creditors. But it never was. The slavers were ready to run that trick again.