I knew what he said. It was all about slavery, all the other things were important only as they related to the central thesis of slavery. I'm sure he's masterful in his baiting activities elsewhere but it didn't work here.
If it was "all about slavery," the United States had the perfect opportunity to remedy that situation when the slave-owning seceding states left and crafted their own sovereign country. I refer to, of course,
the slave-owning states that remained in the Union. If it was "all about slavery," the Union would have cleaned house from the get-go, when the secession of the southern states left Congress and the union left the Republicans with unassailable majorities in the House and Senate. But Lincoln and the Republicans did not use their power to eradicate slavery from their borders when presented this golden opportunity. Revealed preference and all that.
Slavery was but one issue of many. Oh, it was near & dear to the slave-owning class, but it was a secondary issue to most on both sides, downstream of the primary issues. There is way too much documentation and fact to ignore on this point.
Cultures can hold grudges for centuries, if not millennia. The effects of Reconstruction are still within familial memories (my grandaddy would tell me...).
When you wage total war on a people, especially ones that had not done the same, they remember it.
Sherman may have won the war, but he made reconciliation that much harder, as evidenced by the latent hard feelings even 150 years later. (thankfully, at a much lower intensity, but still exist.)
One reason I think were wrong to intervene in the Balkans. After what the Turks and their Muslim converts did to the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes--for centuries--some payback was in order. Still is, I'd warrant.