I replied to the tripe at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters09d12dec09,0,6879231.story thusly:
It is unfortunate that ignorance gets published in The Baltimore Sun, but there is nothing that is about to be done to prevent it. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon those of us who are offended by pusillanimous diatribes such as yours to reply in an attempt to set the record straight. You characterize arguments by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans as "revisionist twaddle" but cite no examples, so you reduce your baseless charges to a level commensurate with an education of which most self-respecting third graders would be ashamed. It is impossible to reply to baseless charges, so I will not attempt that exercise in futility.
You characterize the actions of states which found themselves unwilling to live with the abrogation of the principles of the Constitution as "traiterous." Your dishonesty is apalling.
You state that "the war was fought over the practice of human slavery," but you are apparently ignorant of Lincoln’s statement upon assuming office that he had no desire nor legal authority to abolish slavery. You are apparently ignorant of the offer made by Lincoln AFTER the South had already seceded, that they could retain their slaves if they would only return to the union. So if Lincoln took the issue of slavery off the table, how do you cravenly cling to the lie that the war was about slavery? Why did it take a full year of combat for Lincoln to get around to issuing his so-called "Emancipation Proclamation?" Why did many northern troops immediately desert after this statement? Why did Lincoln limit its authority to the areas of the South which he did not control (and therefore had no authority over) while allowing other Southern territories as well as northern states to continue to practice slavery?
The "disgraceful rebellion," as you mistakenly characterize it, was nothing less than an objection to the perversion of the US Constitution which was being foisted upon the Southern states by those in the north. Apparently you have swallowed the "Kool Aid" of the government schools that conveniently overlooks the fact that the NORTHERN states were responsible for counting slaves as only 3/5 of a human being. So what is it that these less than estimable individuals were fighting for? And why is it that the first successful general, US Grant, was quoted as saying, "If I had any inkling that this war were being fought over the issue of slavery, I would throw down my sword and join the other side." And why was he permitted to have his wife bring her slave into the camp of the Union army when visiting the General? Was this hypocrisy or was it an admission that slavery was NOT the issue at all?
How about answering after you have done some responsible education of yourself? Do not rely upon your government schooling – it is the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.