Bless you, Jared! Y'know, I had the same "unlearning" experience you did...guess we all do. My dad was an AF officer (from an ancient MO family), so we moved around a lot. I remember my first exposure to American History/Civil War (c 1960) in that hotbed of enlightenment--Amityville, Long Island, NY. Jeez, you would have thought that abolitionist John Brown and Abraham Lincoln had wings and walked on water. Never heard a kind word about the South. The official line was that the sanctimonious, morally superior North had to invade and conquer the South to make them see the "error of their ways," for their own good. Etc., etc. My dad said I'd need to learn for myself and make my own assessment. And so I have. It is truly SAD so many Americans are TAUGHT one thing, when in reality, history has many sides. Historical myopia may make one side feel better about their own heritage (i.e., the North), but it shows absolutely no understanding that--as in every struggle--there are two sides (i.e., the South). Slavery IS and always will be a "hot button" issue. But, most Northerners didn't really care one way or the other about the institution, either (abolitionists like the sociopathic John Brown excepted). Fairest scenario is that the North didn't want the South to secede (for reasons tied to economics, not emotion) and fought to "preserve the Union." When slavery entered the picture (concurrent with the Emancipation Proclamation), Union enlistments dropped dramatically, Union officers resigned, and draft riots occurred. The greater resources of the Union, nonetheless, prevented the successful secession of the Southern states and "preserved" the Union. The Union that resulted from the war was a far different government than what existed before the war--centralized, with less power to the states, Lincoln's legacy. Nancy B.