I’ve seen this before, but the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, yes? Even if no one died in that attack, even if it was symbolic, that was an armed rebellion against the United States. So I don’t think it is accurate to say the South was invaded without making that clear. How could that rebellion at Sumter have been let go without the split or dissolution of the Union shortly thereafter? Do you think the South should have been allowed to secede? Putting aside the alternate history of a weaker, fragmented U.S. later in history, the result would have been slavery continuing to exist until… when?

I don’t disagree with your statements that most people, north and south, were very racist at that time, and that the rank and file weren’t fighting to protect slavery. I am also glad that we agree that the states of the Confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery.

My main question with tracts like this about the Civil War is, What do you think should have happened? The North may not have set out to end slavery, but it did end after the war.