Due to the way population expands, it is almost impossible for anyone who was born here within the last few generations to not have at least some ancestry, including the black people of the country.

The only thing that would be interesting about lineages is applying it to everyone else the same way it is applied to normal whites.

That actually wouldn't yield much. You're struggling with the perception of things now being the way they always were. Slavery was a given and acceptable practice for most of history, up until around the time before the Civil War. A lineage of slave owners wouldn't get you much. For one thing, most slave owners treated their slaves well. There were some instances in Mississippi and Louisiana, and I'm sure other exceptions, but slaves being harshly treated was not the norm. Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was often held up as an example showing how slaves were treated portly was later shown to be entirely a work of fiction and not reflecting how things were.

Yes, slaves did still flee and try to get freedom, as many of us would in their shoes, but they were often working on a system that encouraged work through rewards. Picture a system where they were given a base quota but were rewarded for going over it. Rewards could be in the form of passes to town or even money. It was with these that some slaves, like Eli Whitney (the inventor of the cotton gin) bought his own freedom. Slaves often worked alongside the children of their owners in the fields and in some cases even ate with the entire family. This was especially the case for those who owned a few slaves. It didn't make any sense to try to segregate the slaves from the family so they became highly trusted in some cases and were treated like one of the family. Some slaves even rose to positions where they helped manage the plantations they worked on.

The money rewards are also how slaves could turn out to be money lenders to their own owners when finances got tight due to the tariffs. As a note, there were black slave owners as well as white. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin with the goal of making things easier for slaves. His workforce solution was to purchase slaves of his own, train them, and send them about the south making cotton gins for plantations and farmers.

As for the slave owners, they ran a business, especially in the case of the big plantations. They had to oversee the finances, budgets, see that all the slaves had either clothing or means to make clothes, that enough food was purchased to feed everyone, that the slaves had suitable clothing and shelter to protect them from the elements so they wouldn't get sick, oversee the work being done to rate performance of laborers in determining rewards whether they had the aid of dedicated overseers or not, arrange for things to be brought to market and negotiate prices, purchase seed for crops, pay wages to non-slave laborers, and more. It was hardly sitting back and enjoying a life of luxury without any concerns.

As a further example of how things were, when a plantation owner's son went to war, it wasn't unheard of for him to be accompanied by a fully armed slave and the two would fight side by side.

Now, if you want to find people whose families are connected to the cabal ... I suggest looking into the northern industrialists and banking families of Europe. The factory owners and railroad owners were the ones who benefited from the situation while the majority of the south was going broke. I am sure you'd find some family names that are still relevant even today.

Given all I've learned about the situation, the south mostly wanted to get rid of slavery but lacked the means to industrialize properly which would have made it easier to shift to an entirely free workforce made up of paid laborers. In the social structure, slaves weren't even at the bottom rung. According to the writing of some slaves (yes, it wasn't uncommon for slaves to be educated to broaden the range of work they could do), they even looked down upon poor whites, or white trash as we could call them today. During the course of the war, many plantations were raided or burned to the ground by General Sherman and others. It became a bit of a sick game where slaves would try to help hide any riches that a plantation had and mislead the Union soldiers in the hopes that their plantation wouldn't be pillaged entirely.

The overall summary is the the south was justified in their grievances of taxation (through tariffs) without enough representation to have a say in where the money went. Further conflict was seeded by propaganda in northern papers (and perhaps also southern) that served to divide and stir up conflict between different groups. Radical instigators were also used (on both sides of the political divide, I'm sure) to make it that much more difficult to resolve the situation peacefully. I expect Bloody Kansas would be a good example of that if it could be investigated deeply enough.

Overall, if you examine the history on its own merit, you'll recognize that the same playbook was used to divide the United States and usher it into a costly civil war that the cabal has used throughout the world. They just happened to have the additional propaganda weapon in slavery as the perception whether it was acceptable or not was changing.

That in context, the southerners who were fighting for the freedom and independence of their own country were every bit the patriots the founding fathers were. On the flip side, you had honest and patriotic people fighting against them under the belief that they were fighting to preserve their country. So yes, there are heroes on both sides in the context of history and the true heroes should be remembered and even celebrated for their acts of valor and what they truly fought for. The hard fact to internalize is that, in the end, due to the machinations of globalist bankers (the cabal and their minions), both sides lost.

You are wrong.