“So I invite you to read the entire piece:
“Editorial: Hatred to the South – 6-7””
I did read the entire piece - and that section about hatred of the South - that was exactly the part I was calling yankee propaganda - because it WAS yankee propaganda.
Your “entire piece” tells only one side - the Yankee side.
Do you deny it?
enumerated: "I did read the entire piece - and that section about hatred of the South - that was exactly the part I was calling yankee propaganda - because it WAS yankee propaganda."
No, it's an editorial, an opinion piece -- an argument in support of some idea or cause, and clearly labeled as such.
An honest editorial is not "propaganda" and this particular editorial seems entirely honest to me.
The editorial addresses a claim made innumerable times on FR CW threads -- that Northerners "hate" the South and Southerners.
The editors rightly say, in effect: that's nonsense, that Northerners showed the highest respect for Southerners before 1861 and even in 1861 tolerated secessionist seizures of Federal properties, until Fort Sumter.
Now that the Confederacy declared war on the United States, Northerners require Southerners to give up loyalty to Confederates and return to the Constitution, or face Union armies marching to the Gulf.
Those are the Times' strong editorial opinions, but they were also facts, not propaganda.