Like it or not, the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist/traitor' is whether your side wins or loses. Mao's and Lenin's gangs still run the show in their countries. Look for a statue honoring the White Russians in Russia, or Chaing Kai Shek in China. It'll take a while to find one. Because they don't exist.
As to where the Civil War battles were fought, last time I checked, Gettysburg was in Pa.
The South was wrong. They lost. It was 150+ years ago.
Get over it.
The rewriting of southern history is like the Japanese calling WWII the 'War of Western Aggression' (which they do). They forget that they drew first blood at Pearl Harbor. Forget how they murdered a million Chinese. Forget the death marches.
A lot of similarities between the Japanese rewriting history and the BS now being spewed by the South about the Civil War.
I do understand that there were two wars being fought. The North was fighting to preserve the United States of America. The South was fighting for their 'way of life', of which slavery was a key part. I understand that no Northern soldier went to war to free slaves. I also understand that the Southerners were fighting to destroy the United States of America, the country I was born and raised in, and love dearly.
So glad they lost.
It was a spectacular act of Christian charity that Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis weren't hanged as traitors.

Serowbot wrote on 05/28/17 at 18:06:26:


I didn't revise this letter.


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Best regards,

PG,
The former head of the KGB runs Russia. I'd say the l'd say the old gang is still in charge.

Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state’s rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.  Southern states sought to secede because they believed that the federal government had no authority to tell them how to run their affairs.

Best regards,

History is a pack of lies. Texas history books are different than when I went to school. They had to be changed so as to not injure little feelings.
What we were told, the TRUTHS that must be known and used as answers to test questions, some of that is nothing but bullshit.
What happened to the Liberty? What lies were you taught?
What about Vietnam? We HAD to respond to Their Aggression? Right?
And the dastardly deeds of the Iraqis, tossing babies out of incubators, lies, lies, lies,  
When you are able to PROVE you've been lied to by the government, the media and the schools, if you continue to believe them, you're an idiot.

No, but it's not possible to teach the befuddled by the government line anything that conflicts with the training.

Yeah, and the answer to the test question on Nam was
We had to because They Attacked our ship.

And We Were Taught That..
And it was a LIE.

And the one eyed will go on seeing only what they are told to see.