It's cool that some 13 years later, I can look at my horrible, mangled writing and see little that bothers me that isn't stylistic. It does concern me that I described Robert E. Lee as "anti-slavery" even though he disregarded his father-in-law's will, which manumitted his many slaves, to pay for upkeep for his sisters-in-law. Robert E. Lee, annoyed that the slaves disliked this, proceeded to sell the most "uppity" slaves after putting them in slave jail, which was a grave violation of his mother-in-law's desire to never break-up families. In short: Robert E. Lee deserved to be killed via firing squad for torture and abuse.
One reason why I've maintained strident pro-Unionism over all of these years is that I frequently encountered Confederate apologists, sympathizers and other "Lost Cause" BS as a teen, as Confederate nonsense was normalized 15 years ago. So I still have some residual sense that it's transgressive to argue against the Confederacy and that it's very important also.
What's remarkable about it is that it was widely accepted as fact by fairly serious people even though his actual views were hidden in plain sight. Such was the commitment of the US to American Civil War revisionism!
Then there's General Sherman, who happened to be a white supremacist who was the first President of the Louisiana state university.
Poll
