As a fellow non USAian, I think that this is true. The US Civil War seems to have largely been conflated, in many people's minds, into a pro-slave/anti-slave conflict, where, as far as I can tell, it was about a far wider range of issues, with slavery not really the main consideration, but that issue became important because the economic status of the South was built on slavery far more than the North. In fact, I've seen a quote attributed to Lincoln that if there was a way to end the conflict without changing the status of slavery he'd take it. I'm not sure if that's correctly attributed or not but it does line up with what I've read of the general thinking of the era.
Both true and false. There was a large number of abolitionists at the time who were trying to end slavery in the south by any means necessary. There were also business owners in the north who were upset that they had to pay wages to workers when there were those in the south who were making a large amount of money on the backs of slaves. The government knew they had two choices - end slavery completely and cause a rift in the nation, or keep going as we were, and allow the states with slavery still instated to keep on, but not allow it to spread to the territories, which was balked at by slave owners wishing to travel west. And yes, Lincoln did, indeed, state that he would have allowed it to continue if it it would end the war.
There are some who will also insist that the Civil War was fought not over slavery, but over state's rights. This is in essence true, but they brush over the fact that the rights being fought over were the rights to own other human beings. Which makes those people assholes.
Also, people will often bring up Lincoln enacting the draft, and that the rich were able to buy their way out of the draft. And while this is true, again, they miss the point that it was the rich who owned slaves, and the rich certainly weren't fighting for the cause. It was the poor, who never owned slaves, but believed that in such a society, they, too, could achieve that status. Oh, to dream of someday being rich enough to own other humans to do your work for you, so that you can make even more money. Again, assholes.
Okay, enough of my backward country, and its stain on history, and how I'm part Native American, and we know how our country continues to treat my people. Fuckwits.
Seeing :The Way Back" for the first time in far too many years, I was delighted in just how good it is. Sure, we can go on for hours about budget and effects and everything else, but dammit, this is a solid story. We are introduced to Roj Blake, a one-time revolutionary who was brainwashed into believing that he was led astray and became a model citizen. Terry Nation liked to take a lot of credit for many things, but he had some really great ideas, and like Roddenberry and Lucas, he created a brilliant futuristic story. The plot may seem to new audiences as somewhat cliche or derivative, but only because so much that has come since has been informed by this series. An innocent man is framed for a crime he didn't commit, and is sent away by a government who suppresses free thought and doesn't want him to be looked at as a martyr for any cause other than their own. Also, Blake isn't a classical hero, but comes off as an every man, who simply winds up in that "wrong place, wrong time" situation. He's charismatic enough to like, but not overly flashy or showboaty (is that a word? Screw it, it is now.). It is still as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. I am certainly looking forward to episode 2.
Oh yeah, my rating. Like others, I always go x/5. So to adjust I will say it was a solid 9/10. Brilliant script, good dialogue that keeps the story moving with no extemporaneous exposition (say that five times fast after a six pack of lager), and it gives us just enough to want to move forward without giving us a two-hour premiere that bogs us down in long paragraphs of backstory.