The American Confederacy had the right to secede and the Union should not have invaded.

"It is also true that there were abolitionists in South that put aside their differences and took up arms to defend their country, including one of the most prolific military heroes of the war, Robert Lee." Robert E. Lee owned slaves. He was in no sense an abolitionist, simply someone who regarded slavery as a moral problem (one to be left up to "god" to solve." "Defending his country" is not an excuse until that country is established as valid. ". One can compares these people to the anti-slavery souls like Thomas Jefferson that still fought for their country when King George emancipated America's slaves." I don't number hypocrites as "anti-slavery," even if they are conflicted about their actions. King George may have officially emancipated america's slaves, but keep in mind he essentially stood on a platform of enslaving everyone in the colonies. It is this and not any moral merit of Jefferson and co which justifies the revolution. "I am a capitalist, but the unfettered form in the mid 1800's was not praiseworthy form that we know today. " If you believe we have capitalism today, I do not number you a capitalist. If you believe that the poor conditions for workers in the 1800's were caused by "unfettered capitalism" (as opposed to a. no better conditions being known anywhere yet due to having beeen even less capitalist recently, and b. violent strikebreaking that interferes with free market processes, along with tariffs, backlashes to attempted regulation that cause businesses to control legislatures, etc.), I do not number you a capitalist. Only those who know the nature of capitalism are qualified to use the title of capitalist. You are at best a Keynesian, as your support of "the progressive tax" in your profile proves. mid-1800s factory workers may have had bad conditions by today's standards, but not by the standards of anywhere else in the world at the time or before, except those standards reserved for nobility and such. Nowhere were the lower classes richer anywhere in history up to that point than the Northern lower classes in the 1800s. The main reason conditions were not better was because they (the north) had not been even semi-free long enough to have produced enough to make them better yet. "Yes slavery ended, but it was replaced with a form of despicable apartheid, not exactly a great social revolution." Justifying the war does not require a "great social revolution," only an improvement on what was there without the war. Apartheid you can legally run north from trumps slavery you can't. "The federal power still had no strength to issue reforms when franchise returned to the South. " because southern senator's blocked it. "Yes true, Washington did a better job in ending apartheid than Richmond would have (it would probably have ended twenty-five years later likely)" 25 years? tell me what leads you to believe they ever would have :D. "but do you know what would have abolished slavery and apartheid even faster? London, but the Americans today still honour the Founding Fathers of their country, as the South would be today for Davies, Lee and Benjamin." London would not have ended slavery. It would have ended the official system in which blacks were the only slaves- and replaced it with a world in which all american colonists are slaves to the king/parliament... Or did you not pay attention to the behavior of king George? By the time London really stopped with those kind of colonial ambitions, they quickly replaced it with socialism (i.e. slavery of all to all rather than all to the king). It was not until, really, mid 20th century that Margaret Thatcher started to roll things back and achieve a level of freedom comparable to what the american revolution produced. "Self-rule is still a principle that we honour today, and" That you and some others do. Not we. Not me, in the sense you mean it (democratic localism). The only sort of self-rule I recognize is that of the individual. "and you must also keep in mind that apartheid was still greatly upheld in the North even at that time and a huge majority of US citizens" Not to the same extent as it was in the south. "Lincoln provoked a needless war, resulting in huge economic hardships, the deaths of many thousands of young men, all for the purpose of holding together a country." His purpose is irrelevant, the consequence of increased freedom for the innocent remains the same. Economic hardships went down rather than up after the war for the non-slaveholders. As for deaths, those who died are by and large those who complied with the curtailing of freedoms (voters). The only innocent deaths I know of are those who volunteered for the cause. Drafts are regrettable but not necessary to war and not a central issue therefore in our resolution. " As for your argument that slaves weren't paid realise that money isn't always a measure of wealth. Free rent and food can sometimes be preferred to the wages of unskilled Irish textile workers. " speaking of slaves getting "free" rent and food is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Things ain't free for ya unless you free :D. Indeed, they did not "get" rent and food in the sense of a value, only in the sense of upkeep. In other words, it doesn't count as yours unless you get to decide how to dispose of it. A wage however small being yours is superior to a million things that aren't yours. "This contradicts your argumentation. London wanted to free its slaves-, which you believe is a solid measure of freedom. But they also wanted to have their own self-governance, just like the South would years later. You really don't make sense." I addressed this nonsense above about london. Black slavery is not the only kind of slavery out there. " You also fail to understand that perceptions of what counted as a person were different back than, and just because slavery ended does not any sort newfangled glorious utopia was formed in the USA. T" No I don't, and you have no evidence for this supposed failure to understand. "(such FREEDOM of trade, and lack of economic hindrances that hurt the Southern economy, but helped the North's" Tariff's hurt the south's economy, and also the north's, and yes the north was to blame for those tariffs. But tariffs did not hurt nearly as much as slavery did. It's a helluva lot easier to be a smuggler than a fugitive slave.