Question. When the Romans became an empire, who got to write history???
The victors get to write history, which is why it's generally better to be a victor and generally not a good idea to get into a shooting war that you can't win. Had America's founders not been able to win, the American Revolution would be a footnote in British history and had they run their revolution like the French, we would no doubt have had our Napoleon and our revolution would be yet another example of what not to do. The problem with the American Revolution is that it gives people an overly optimistic view of rebellions that's just not supported by history. Most of them go badly and I have little doubt that the Southern rebellion would have gone badly even had they won their independence.
Or to put this another way, a lot of this is just as silly as people in La Raza sitting around complaining about the gross injustice of the United States taking the American southwest and Texas away from Mexico before the Civil War. Do you think we should give that territory back to Mexico and, if not, why not?
And I suppose I should add that my reply was to a very specific claim, which was that, "when Grant died, very few folks lamented his passing." I provided ample evidence that this specific claim was simply not true. Do you disagree?