Deucalion wrote:
(snip)

Hell, he doesn't even understand one of the basic principles of war.
The one that says that those who win the war get to write the history.
If he did a little study, he would find out that freeing the slaves in
the South wasn't seriously considered until after the war began. Prior
to that, Northern states had freed slaves (on a state level) and that
new states entering had used two different methods to determine
whether they would be slave states or not. At one time there was a
state vote and under the other they alternated between slave state and
free state.

Was slavery morally wrong? Yes indeed. It was just as wrong as it
had been when the founding fathers of the US decided to leave it in
place when the nation was formed.

While the victors, who did get to write the history books, have done a
great job of making it look like the Civil War was caused by a single
issue, it is apparent to anyone who looks in the shadows that the
causes of the war were multi-faceted and included taxation, tariffs,
the First Transcontinental Railroad, and a general feeling that
Southern States did not have enough power in Congress to defend their
own self interests.

Are you saying that there haven't been history books written by the
losers of the American Civil War, those clowns who call it the War of
Northern Aggression, the War Between(sic) the States and other
fanciful concoctions? Probably about the same number of books from
each side.

Of course, outside the USA, it's still the American Civil War.

They decided to exit a union that they had voluntarily entered into.
General legal theory at the time said that they were within their
rights to do so. Those Constitutional ambiguities were corrected in
the years following the war and resulted in a federal government that
intrudes in nearly every aspect of state governance.

So there was no debate about whether they had the right to withdraw
from the USA? Wrong.

David