>" I'm relieved to see that he meant the North and the South"
>
>Mmmm... the undercurrent of accusations of racism was your next offering. Seems every discussion with people about the war ends up with anyone who defends any part of the south labeled as racist and the north supporters were stand up guys. There is volumes you can discuss about the era and never talk about slavery. Much like today's climate if you did not vote for, disagree with ,and/or criticize, the sitting President you must be a racist. How low we have come that we cannot express opinion without castigation.

Let's get real here. I'm a northerner who is living in the south and have been for 18 years. I've gone through the history lessons in northern schools and read those of my daughter here in the south.

The war was to prevent the separation of the union, not to free slaves. Freeing slaves became militarily and politically expedient at the time. It is now often listed as one of the effects of the war, but not as one of the goals.

Also let's be honest. Abe Lincoln campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states which already practiced it, but he did not campaign for the ending of slavery. Specifically, he refused to allow slavery in the new territories. When he won the election, it was one, if not the, driving force for the southern secession. Prior to that, South Carolina considered secession over tariffs. It all could have exploded earlier when Missouri joined the union as a slave state had Maine not joined as well. The war was more about poitical clout than anything else. The south didn't want the northern states to have more say and power and the north didn't want a political deadlock. The nullification controversy and the Webster-Hayne debates were driving forces to the war. They created the seeds of discontent and negative relations. The Kansas-Nebraska act practically nullifying the Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott case, Harpers Ferry, and Anthony Bums (spelling?) all added to a foregone conclusion of war.