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

" First of all the notion that the North was a group of anti-racism crusaders. This is bogus," I never said they were now did I? But the fact is that the group of anti-slavery crusaders that was present, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and such, sided with the north under consideration of all the facts available to them (more facts than are available to you). "The North was no where nearly as economically dependant as the South on slave-labour, and managed to exploit their workforce in other methods." Exploit? Am I speaking with a marxist? They weren't dependent on slave-labour because they were very nearly capitalist. This capitalism is precisely what prevents slavery. The fact that it was in their self-interest to oppose slavery is a reason not to oppose them but support them. "Or do you beg to differ that the unionless factories of New England were really that much more respectful of human rights than the cotton plantations of Virginia?" Yes I do. They respected the right of people to own themselves and freely exchange their labor and its products. "The Emancipation Proclamation was purely a war measures act, meant to encourage Negro disloyalty in the South just King George's Knell against the 13 Colonial slavery was meant to inhibit the Revolution's control of her slaves." Your point? I'm not idealizing the Union as a moral paragon, I'm regarding the Confederacy as something that must be destroyed. When people advocate the same policy you do but for different reasons, it is no reason to abandon the policy. Ignoratio elenchi you seem to be heading towards. "After the Union had conquered, apartheid in the South still continued for a century." But if you'll notice, slavery didn't. Just because something does not solve every problem is no reason not to do it if it doesn't solve one. And if you'll notice, the apartheid as you call it was passed by- Southern legislatures! Can you really argue it would not have been worse if those southern legislators were the ONLY ones who had a say in anything that went on around there? "So much for "rights" you talk so admirably about- tell that to the freed slaves who continued to work for their former masters at the same pay, if not lesser pay (due to economic catastrophe caused by the war). " It's not the North's fault those slaves didn't leave for greener pastures than the South you know. And there is no such thing as "less pay" than a slave. Feeding a prisoner is not a wage. "The war hurt everybody, and not even Negroes really escaped the burdens it brought with it. " The war harmed southern whites, and those who died in it. It did not harm the former slaves. Slavery is of necessity zero value (even if you make values you do not own them), value can only go up from slavery. "Yet we should look at the South's rebellion just as we did the 13 Colony's so many years ago." 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. ". There were groups of citizens that were unhappy with their political rights and wished for greater independence from their masters (London, than D.C.) and so they rebelled against those they viewed as tyrants, Lincoln (only had 40% of the vote) and George (unelected)." Democracy is not a right. The police state created by the South can hardly be regarded as an improvement in independence as counts (individual independence from users of force). "Slavery was an issue in both cases (both times people were concerned about the abolitionist movements in London and D.C.), but the biggest one. Both times, it was political alienation." The biggest issue in any war changes depending on which participants you ask. You have no evidence to regard "political alienation" as more important than slavery or taxes in a given war. " Rights are a malleable idea and in 1860's perception they were different ideals than we have today." They are malleable ideas only for those with malleable minds. "In those days, as it today in North America (except Cuba), is the principle that every citizen should have the equal democratic right to vote, be heard, and direct his or her country anyway they see fit, even towards separation." Argumentum ad populum. The public perception is not a relevant consideration in the matter of whether a given interpretation of rights is correct. There is no lynch mob, firing squad, or river of tears large enough, to establish a right where there is no right. "In today's civilized world Canadian military wouldn't be sent in if Quebec voted to separate, would you?" Canada would not allow me access to it's military, but hypothetically, if the majority of Quebec's citizens were attempting to secede from a government that prevented them from oppressing any minority of quebec's citizenry (including a minority of one), I would support any military invasion of quebec. If however the secession would result in increased freedom (e.g. a capitalist secession) then I would support independence. Secession is not any sort of right but a tactical matter to be treated as each situation that comes up dictates. "That is because most people respect the democratic rights of citizens to do as they please, thus defining the accountable form of democracy we know today. " Argumentum ad populum again. "Most people respecting" a given idea of a right does not cause it to become a right. Indeed there is a conflict of interest here, because "most people" are precisely the ones democracy grants discretion to. I do not regard the enslavement of people as a right, no matter how large a majority is for it. Also, just gonna throw this out there for ya, but if blacks were added to the elections of the Confederacy, the confederacy would have been overthrown in minutes. You see, there were more slaves than free men in the confederacy. So not only are your democratic arguments invalid, but they are also based on the false premise that democracy favors the confederacy.