A lengthy editorial, but well worth reading.
It makes the same point often posted by DiogenesLamp & others, that Civil War is less about one region versus others, than about class warfare, the few rich versus the many poor.
But unlike our Lost Cause defenders, the Editors do not identify "the rich" as "Northeastern Power Brokers", but rather as Southern slave-ocrats, for whom poor Southerners have little love & loyalty.
Their policy prescription is to strike at the Southern slave-ocracy's power base -- slavery -- without harming the masses of poorer white Southerners.
The Editorial demonstrates yet again that Civil War was indeed about slavery, but the recommendations will not work as well as hoped, for the simple reason that Union troops in Confederate lands united Southerners rich & poor against "foreign invaders".
In our Editors' defense, they are expecting Gen. McClellan's forces in Virginia to bring a quick end to war by defeating the main Confederate army & capturing Richmond.
So I'd hate, hate to draw the obvious analogy to a certain current war in (ahem) Europe... no, not going to do that!
Well, for one thing, unlike Confederates, one side today has sympathy & support from nearly the whole world, and is not trying to defend a repugnant social structure.
Such support was critical to Americans in the Revolutionary War, and its absence critical to Confederates in the Civil War.
We'll see how much it helps in Europe today.