First, let me get this out of the way: The civil war was absolutely about slavery, not states rights, slavery. If you think otherwise you are wrong.

Most northeners believe the Union fought to end slavery. That they were the absolute good guys, fighting for equality against the racist southern slavers. That Lincoln was a hero who believed in the equality of all people.

Let me shatter that illusion right now with this quote:

“We can not, then, make them [African Americans] equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.” - Abraham Lincoln

You can read the entire speech in context here: www.nps.gov/liho/learn/…/peoriaspeech.htm

So Lincoln was a racist, does that make him evil? No, but it does make him a product of his time. And it certainly shows the Union wasn’t fighting for equality.

We know the south was fighting so they could preserve slavery, but was the north fighting to end it? Once again from the man himself:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” - Abraham Lincoln

Context: www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/…/greeley.htm

The Union wasn’t fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the union and nothing more.

But Lincoln did eventually become the hero who freed all the slaves, right? Sort of. My issue here is partially “great man” style history. Abolitionists had been fighting and dying to end slavery in America for centuries, yet Lincoln gets all the credit.

And it’s not like the man invented the idea of banning slavery, America was the only wealthy nation in the world where slavery was still legal in the first place. (Difficult to imagine living in an American that’s completely behind on social progress isn’t it?)

Furthermore, the emancipation proclamation only banned slavery in the Confederacy. It was still not illegal in US territories.

So sure, politicians are politicians, name a president who hasn’t been problematic. But the Union was still objectively the good guys here right?

My last major issue to cover is Sherman’s march. The Union utterly destroyed the south on a level that is difficult to accurately describe. They raized farms, factories, and cities alike with no consideration toward who actually owned slaves or not.

If you and I lived in the south in the 1800s two things would probably be true, we would live on a farm and we wouldn’t own slaves. Would we be racist? Most likely. Would we believe slavery was a good thing? Probably. Would that mean we deserve to have our home destroyed, all our carefully planted crops burned, our livestock slaughtered, left hoping to find enough food to survive? Absolutely not. Anyone with basic empathy wouldn’t be OK with that.

The Union targeted non-combatant civilians. And they targeted them hard. There’s a term for that tactic. The Union straight up committed war crimes against people living in the south. I want to reiterate this for emphasis, the federal government destroyed the livelihoods of people living in the US to gain an economic advantage in a war.

If we’re willing to give Lincoln a pass for being a product of his time, doesn’t the average person living in the south also deserve it?

In conclusion, while the civil war was absolutely about slavery, the Union wasn’t the heroic force it’s portrayed as in the north.