I dare you to read this flapdoodle.
Now, isn’t it interesting that the ONLY examples he can find of people making incorrect statements concerning events of history are from those who lean rightward, politically.
Regardless, the point I would like to address is the blanket statement “The Civil War was over the Slavery Question”. Eh…Secession was about slavery; the war was due to Lincoln’s maniacal impulse to impose his mercantilist policies on a free people (both north and south, and come to think of it, on those suffering in slavery). How do we know this? Because the South did not secede all at once. This is conveniently ignored, but North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas all decided to remain in the Union, until, of course, Lincoln’s dictatorial bent was exposed by his call for troops to invade the South.
Don’t believe me? Consider Tennessee (from Wikipedia):
Unionists of all descriptions, both those who became Confederates and those who did not, considered the proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand troops “disastrous.” Having consulted personally with Lincoln in March, Congressman Horace Maynard, the unconditional Unionist and future Republican from East Tennessee, felt assured that the administration would pursue a peaceful policy. Soon after April 15, a dismayed Maynard reported that “the President’s extraordinary proclamation” had unleashed “a tornado of excitement that seems likely to sweep us all away.” Men who had “heretofore been cool, firm and Union loving” had become “perfectly wild” and were “aroused to a frenzy of passion.” For what purpose, they asked, could such an army be wanted “but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states.” The growing war spirit in the North further convinced southerners that they would have to “fight for our hearthstones and the security of home.”
- Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis (1989), p.334.
For God and Free Trade 