[DiogenesLamp]

Yes! And as divided aa our country is, I’d take our situation now over Civil War/slavery era any day.

Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. It was about preventing the South from upsetting trade conditions that funneled 200 million per year into New York, with Washington DC taking their 64 million per year cut.

The Civil War was about money, but the propaganda about it convinced everyone it was about slavery. No, it was about money.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Civil War was about money, but the propaganda about it convinced everyone it was about slavery.
No, it was about money."

That was a lie the first time you posted it, and gains no veracity by your constant repetition.
Here's the real truth (again):

1. Deep South Fires Eaters declared secession to protect slavery -- that's what they said at the time.
   
2. Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter to defend Confederate "integrity" -- that's what he said at the time.
   
3. Lincoln considered Davis' assault on Fort Sumter an act of rebellion and called up 75,000 troops to suppress it -- it's what he said at the time.
   
4. The Confederate Congress responded to Lincoln's actions by declaring war on the United States, and Confederates attacked Union troops in Union states.
   
5. The US Congress approved Lincoln's actions and did what it could to support the war effort.

Pure economics was never expressed as the sole reason for any of these actions, except in one case I know of:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth... "
--Mississippi Reasons for Secession January 1861