No doubt.
For whatever reasons one may choose to argue; none of them alter the fact that the Union was excluded from the Emanipation Proclaimation.
"You make it sound as if the North kept its slaves into the 1950s."
Do I really? Where?
"I think there is mis-representation on both sides."
I would agree. However, because 'they were doing it too' is hardly a reason to not question misrepresentation.
Why, do you think, is such a mis-representation(United States) called for?
That's true. Lincoln laid the groundwork for the continuation of slavery after the war, though he did it because he believed it necessary to prevent widespread murder and crime in the south. In any case, Thaddeus Stevens saw to it that Americans of African heritage were freed by federal law despite Lincoln's comparatively sophisticated gambit. Sadly though, Thaddeus died before he could rule the south long enough with an iron fist to prevent the savage genocide of Americans of African heritage that followed his death.
Because, depending on exactly what you are talking about, I don't think it is a misrepresentation. I think the key misrepresentation is that slavery was the only issue, just as I think it is a misrepresentation to say it wasn't an issue at all. But that is hardly surprising given the complexity of life and the all too common simplifications that people rely on to make any sense of it. But as far as the United States being a single nation and not a loose collection of states, I think it is telling that Southerners didn't dance in the streets on 9/11 like the Palestinians because the Yankees finally got some pay back for their imperialism. And despite Washington excesses that most people on Free Republic probably agree upon, I don't see a whole lot of regret from people down South about being citizens of the United States as opposed to the CSA.