Whoa there, Michael. I'm a born and bred Westerner, with a mostly detached view of both sides of the war. My point in all this is that: Yes the word is loaded and biased, but is still within the definition. Does the author have an axe to grind? Maybe; he doesn't appear totally objective.
OTOH, neither do you.
Does the fact that is was not directed at a minority make it excusable? Implying that the South's actions against Blacks was more vicious and more wrong, because it was racist in nature? So when Sherman's men raped 12 year old white girls, burned down their fathers farms and cut a swath of destruction 60 miles wide and 200 miles long, it was less of a crime because it was not directed at a minority?
Nope. Sherman's men committed atrocities too. His methods were despicable on occasion. But his purpose was to destroy the infrastructure (railways, farms, manufacturing) and morale that allowed the Confederate Army to continue to fight. It wasn't just "simple vengeance." As I said in another post: it was war at its most brutal. Rather like the actions of Quantrill's Raiders.
Personally, I don't subscribe to the excuse that because Side A did something terrible that it somehow mitigates the sins of Side B.
The only good thing to come out of the whole Civil War was the eradication of the cancer of slavery; but it was a brutal surgery without anaesthesia. It created deep scars and wounds that still fester.
And before any of you jump on me for that, I'm saying that was the only good OUTCOME, not the only CAUSE. Some fought to preserve the Union, some to defend their States. Some fought to maintain their "peculiar institution", some to "punish the traitors". Some motives were of high merit and some of low on BOTH sides.
I mostly stay out of these thread discussions because the partisans on both sides devolve into demonizing the other's heroes while writing hagiographies of their own.
As am I. California to be precise.
My view on the Civil war stems more from my basic philosphy today and the effect that the war had on the future political growth of this country. Specifically, I referring to:
"Big Government/All Powerful" - Lincoln felt that the power of the fed was the overiding issue, including slavery. Thus he set into motion the idea that the federal government was all powerful and was the solution to everything. This seed took a long time to grow from his germination of that idea.
It can be argued, that it first grew in the south during reconstruction. The first fruit was borne during the depression, when government was viewed as the only solution. This was further solidified by LBJ's Great Society and 'War on Poverty.' Today this idea is the manifest philosophy of the Democratic Party.
States Rights - The WBTS effectively took away states rights. The 10th amendment has been virtually ignored, since that time. I strongly believe that government obtains its power from the people and that the further removed the government is from the people, the less reponsive it is to the needs of the people.
One could also say that the North took the shackles off of the blacks, but condemned them to a life of economic oppression. Putting this idea forward to today, the left will argue that Bush brough freedom to Iraq, but did not plan for Iraq's future. Likewise, one could say that Lincoln, by failing to plan for the free blacks, then made the government responsable for their livelyhood.
Slavery is the 'Giant in the room' though, that cannot be overlooked. For some the defeat of the South and the freedom of the slaves, outweighs all other considerations.