You agree with Gore Vidal who thought the union success in the war created an empire. Gore, despite himself, had southern sympathies and wrote brilliantly on Lincoln and the war. I recommend his essays and novels on the subject.
I think what bothers me on FR, though, is the exquisite pc-ness affected by some people here over the issue of slavery. They reduce the whole war to that one issue - which is obviously not correct. But it makes people feel so...exquisite.
I hate the thought of agreeing with Gore Vidal, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds an acorn. Yes, I think it was about Empire building. In the last few years I have discovered quite a lot of people see it this way too. I think the roots of our modern "Deep State"/"Establishment"/"Uniparty", are the consequence of that Civil War. Certainly all power seems to continuously gravitate toward the direction of Washington DC.
I think what bothers me on FR, though, is the exquisite pc-ness affected by some people here over the issue of slavery. They reduce the whole war to that one issue - which is obviously not correct. But it makes people feel so...exquisite.
"Virtue Signaling." I think much hatred of the South is a consequence of the PC propaganda that we have all grown up with. What is consistently and inexplicably overlooked in these discussions is that the North had slavery too, and it lasted longer there than it did in the south.
It creates a cognitive disconnect to believe it was over slavery, and then not wonder why the Northern states could continue having it all through the war.
As I used to quip, "if it was over slavery, they should have invaded Maryland. Their supply lines would have been much shorter." :)
I see the war as primarily about Washington control of the revenue streams. If they couldn't control them, they destroyed them.