To understand a situation in my opinion, you have to look at all sides of the argument. Some times conflicting and contrasting stories can create a different story or alter another.
Look at the American Civil War for example. It is often told a conflict about ending slavery, the tolerant progressive north who wants to end slavery beating up the south because they are clinging onto their old oppressive and bigoted ways.
However there was a lot more to the Civil War than just the slaves alone. For example the Southern states lacked the representation the North had. Cotton harvested by the slaves and taxed by the government in the south is shipped North to factories worked on by children and owned by rich business men. These business men then used their profits form textiles and government subsidiaries which were funded with tax money were spent on northern infrastructure. Their were lot of railroads and cbrown towns from steam ships in the north which allowed the industry in the North to flourish. So the south felt cheated in that aspect, meanwhile you go these people from the north who know nothing of the southern life style wanting to free the slaves. In the South's eyes this is seen as another act of the north holding down the poor south.
From another perspective the north wasn't all that noble to begin with. Their factories to the north used southern cotton, which cotton picked by slaves. They basically profited more from slavery than the south did. Plus Abraham Lincoln was hopeing for the whole thing to blow over kind like how we wish for all controversial things to do, the war was basically a convenient Annoying Orange card. Also the freeing of slaves was done more as act to hurt the southern war effort than actually freeing them for the sake of human rights. States like Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri never succeeded and they were allowed to keep their slaves till the end of the war.
