OK, you are going to need to have citations here.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems to twist and turn history to make the plantation owners look like the heroes. The KKK probably couldn't invent better "lenses to see the world."
"It was fought to keep Brittan from reconquering the US."
Well, if the South had won, that would have been possible, because they'd be in debt to Britain and annexed. The Southern elite were throwing their lot in with the Crown. So are you saying they SHOULD have become part of Britain?
"Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he's a nice guy. Lincoln proclaimed emancipation to make the British government's support of slave-owning confederates EXTREMELY unpopular with the British people,"
Economically, today as it was back then, it's cheaper to use Capitalism to keep people poor -- rather than slavery. THEY have to go about feeding themselves anyway, and housing, and you don't have to guard people. Irish were probably cheaper in the North than slaves in the South -- I'll agree with that. But emancipation happened. If the South was unpopular for slavery and it wasn't that great an economic engine -- why the Hell did they keep people in slavery? The people who tried to abolish slavery did so at great risk. Whether you think Lincoln was a "nice guy" or not -- this is a self inflicted wound of the South.
The fact is; the Southern plantations had slaves. It had to have an economic or social reason so they were either profiting or being a bunch of dicks. I'm not seeing the nobility just based on the broad, inconvertible facts of history.
The UK didn't abandon the South because of the slavery issue -- they were blockaded and their ships kept from bringing in supplies. Whether or not it was popular, the crown had all kinds of operations around the world exploiting people. Local opinions didn't seem to matter when it came to making money.
"There were white people working the fields right next to the slaves" -- I never heard that before.