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

Lee was highly regarded by both sides during the war and after. He was known as an "offensive" type general that played defensive mostly during the war. His military strategies were still being studied by us and other countries post WW1. He knew we'd never "beat" the north, he just hoped to prolong the war and they get tired of spending money and men losing lives. Many folks on both sides didn't expect the war to last more than a few months.

When Gettysburg happened, even after the defeat, morale was high in the confederate army. It surprised everyone the south had the ability to make an attack on the north. The problem is the south truly used up too many resources and it somewhat woke up a sleeping giant in the process. People started flocking to the the military on the northern side afterwards.

We like to think in the south we had the better soldiers. In reality, the north had very good and well trained military. A high percentage of soldiers from the south that were in the army prior to the war stayed with the north also. Let's not forget that much of the north was rural back then, so there were still many people "from the country" fighting for the north. The south just had an all star team of commanders.

Lee knew by 1865 the north wasn't running out of money or manpower, he finally made the unpopular decision to surrender. If not the war would have gone on for several more years. None of this had anything to do about slavery, so my bad.

You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it. Cotton export taxes were being raised and Mexico and Central America took advantage of it and became a player in the cotton trade. Also most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north. There were many various reasons for the war.