"Union apologists" don't have anything to do with it, and in fact today's racial rhetoric really doesn't have much to do with Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War.
However much you guys may cheer on Lee or Jackson or Davis, there isn't much enthusiasm for Lincoln or Grant or Sherman in Black Lives Matter (whatever that is) or on college campuses.
But heaven help us if you guys get your own way. You'd have kids thinking the tariff was worse than slavery and Lincoln the worst and only racist president.
So, apparently according to the lost cause losers the “Union apologists” are propagandizing with revisionist history while simultaneously not teaching it at all.
Makes no less sense than the other silliness they spout
;’}
You kid yourself. Most people have so little understanding of History that they don't recognize the connection.
But heaven help us if you guys get your own way. You'd have kids thinking the tariff was worse than slavery and Lincoln the worst and only racist president.
That is a complete misstatement of our position. No one is arguing that slavery is/was good. What we are arguing is that it was legal during that time period, and much of the money being produced was the consequence of it.
*I* am arguing that the Southern States seceded to get away from what they thought was economically unfair laws and tariffs created by the voting block of the Northern States and against their interests.
I am further arguing that the Northern Power blocks, having realized how much money they would lose from an Independent South trading directly with Europe, therefore launched a war against Southern Independence to prevent that massive loss of money.
The moral disagreement between the North and South over Slavery did indeed exist, but it was not the primary reason for which the Northern States launched an invasion of the Southern states. It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented by an Independent South, which was their primary motivation to wage war. It is why one of the first things they did is attempt to stop that same European trade, which had no obvious military value that I can see.
The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced. It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved.
After enough blood had been spilled, the economic reasons for commencing it were forgotten, and it became a hate war between invader and defender with the Invaders having the vastly upper hand.
To justify what they had done, the victors spun the narrative that they were fighting against slavery and they have been loudly repeating that ever since.
They focus on Slavery because if you focus on the real issues, the North does not look so very good regarding what they did.