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

So many words… Yes there were a great deal of anti-slavery souls in the North fighting for freedom. 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. 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. Likewise in the North, there were great deal of pro-slavery people, and the divide between pro and anti-slavery states is not nearly as fine as some people believe. I do apologise for quasi-Marxist remarks but I am only trying to establish that slavery did not really greatly affect the living standards of American Negroes to any great degree. They were not the only oppressed demographic in the United States and the cruel treatment of employess in Northern factories was often worse than landowners' treatment of their property (not as easily disposed of). I am a capitalist, but the unfettered form in the mid 1800's was not praiseworthy form that we know today. "…Ignoratio elenchi you seem to be heading towards." No this conclusion is not irrelevant because you must realise that without the correct spirit no real reformation can happen. Yes slavery ended, but it was replaced with a form of despicable apartheid, not exactly a great social revolution. The federal power still had no strength to issue reforms when franchise returned to the South. Yes true, Washington did a better job in ending apartheid than Richmond would have (it would probably have ended twenty-five years later likely) 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. Self-rule is still a principle that we honour today, 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 (as viewed by the North as well, blacks didn't register in their minds as part of this group) had wanted to separate- and had voted on such. 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. Yugoslavia also tried to artificially hold itself together, and that resulted a total mess as the majority refused to allow minority political ideals to separate. Lincoln's name should be compared Tito's in so many ways. 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. "No, the 13 colonies were moving from less freedom to more. The South was moving from more freedom to less. That is the relevant factor in how it should be viewed." 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. In conclusion you have completely failed to differentiate between why one political entity (the very pro-slavery 13 colonies) was justified attaining independent rule but the very pro-slavery Confederate states was not justified in trying to separate. Your arguments resemble that of the the typical uber-patritoic American that believes his country's actions were always justified and your enemies were always wrong, even when they were doing the same sort of thing. 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. There are more ways than one to abridge freedom, and the US had plenty of experience in this field. The South was not only rebelling because of different social values (place of Negoroes in society), but because of political reasons (the majority in the North was negating Southern cocerns in congress, and wasn't giving as much independent rule) and economic (such FREEDOM of trade, and lack of economic hindrances that hurt the Southern economy, but helped the North's). My opponent fails to properly address these matters and seems to only repeat the same argument over and over again, about slavery in South, than contradicts himself in praising the American Revolution.