Quote Originally Posted by Zharakov
Who cares weather it symbolizes slavery?

Geuss what, the Russian flag today can symbolize the opression of the people around 100 years ago... Do we complain? No.
That's nice, but this isn't Russia. We are not accustomed to gulags, purges of millions of our own citizens, feudalism and strongmen as our historical heritage.

Abraham Lincolin was almost a dictator. He silenced any news paper that supported your south. He enforced martial law in more then a few states. He kept several POWs in prison for many years after the war was over.
Wow, that certainly justifies enslaving 4 million people for life... Lincoln was only what the South made him. They forced war on them, and he did what was needed to win. He wasn't planning to maintain more authority than needed, which is what clearly separates him from despots and dictators.

Actually, there were quite a few newspapers that were left running despite their Southern leanings and scathing articles about Lincoln and the war. Some were shut down. There were a number of papers shut down because they were abolitionist before the war--often at local hands. It was a different age.

Considering there was a civil war and guerrilla activity and open revolt martial law was required in some areas, DUH! When local authorities no longer have control, martial law is used.

Your south was fighting not for the right to own slaves, but for basic state rights. Slaver was not a total issue untill your Battle of Gettysburgh and the Emancipation Proclimation *Spelling*.
Wrong. Slavery was THE issue. It was why the South seceeded. The economic system of the South was built on slavery, and much of its wealth was tied up in the value of slaves. Any *perceived* threat to slavery was an attack on the whole Southern economy and livelihood.

South Carolina was the first to secede. Lincoln said he would not allow the spread of slavery to the territories (Federal authority...not "States Rights.") South Carolina said that if Lincoln was elected it would seceed. It did so and the others followed. Lincoln had not even taken office when states began seceeding. States rights was a tool for maintaining slavery. And has been pointed out, Southern states had no problems stomping on the States Rights of others to strengthen slavery.

For the North, the war was not about slavery, it was about preserving the Union. Ironically, once the South seceeded, slavery was doomed, since it no longer had its built in constitutional protections. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool of war, and a very successful one. You have fallen into the trap of so many before you, claiming the war was not about slavery because that is not why the North went to war. It IS why the South seceeded, and it is why the South went to war. The South initiated the war, therefore the war was about slavery.

The simplest test of all is this one: Would there have been an American Civil War without slavery? The answer is, no.

My sister has told me that your schools and many historians are biasd against your south... It is not a fair layout for your south...
That is inaccurate. First, quite a few schools are in the South and "Southern pride" is not something to tread on lightly. What the schools do tend to focus on is slavery's evils, which is good since slavery was so at odds with the basic tenets of the foundation of this nation. A surprising amount of the historical literature is pro-Southern but most authors strive for balance. There is a great deal of respect for the Southern military achievements. I have a large collection of Civil War books and ironically the three most biased books I have are "pro-Southern." These are ones that try to gloss over atrocities and deny them, etc. The tone in these three books is completely biased.