An interesting essay. As a native southerner, I feel I could give you some clarity on the causes behind the Civil War. In a condensed format, of course. The "South" produced and exported large quantities of
agricultural goods (cotton)and in turn, produced a large amount of tax income for the government. The "North" ,already
industrialized and with its huge cities, used tax income generated by the "South" to build their infrastructure. The "South" was offended at the amount of tax revenue re-invested in the"South". Yes, they knew slavery as an institution was on the way out and they asked for
programs to subsidize the transition. The "North" was all-important and how the "South" was affected was of no concern. In reality, the "South" was enslaved to the "North". Until the Civil War, it was a given that membership in the Union was voluntary. Lincoln suspended the
Constitution, killed States Rights, and ushered in the era of big government. His EmancipationProclaimation only freed slaves in the Confederacy. Gen. Grant still held his slaves. Lincoln
had the idea to ship slaves back to Africa. The country of Liberia is the result of this failed attempt. Lincoln himself stated that he did not believe freed slaves would ever be able to live in the states as equals. I suggest Thomas Dilorenzo's book The Real Lincoln for some insights in what Lincoln believed - based on his own statements not conjecture. And I believe his views to be representative of the "North". They did not want slaves -freed or otherwise- in the North and
most certainly did not want to fight and die for the cause. I believe Lincoln agreed with this but believed preserving the Union was worth sacrificing as many Unions troops as necessary. Anything that could used to humilate and utimately destroy the unruly "South" would be used as a pretense for war. Slavery was current and seemed as good as any.
At the startof the War for Southern Independence, the "South" dominated and sent envoys to Washington to meet with Lincoln and sign a peace treaty. He refused to meet with them. The overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves and fought for their homes and families. Northerners fought because they were conscripted (Conscription Riots in New York, 1863) We all know the outcome. While we were occupied and CSA vetrans stripped of the right to vote or hold office, puppet governments of freed slaves and scalawags ran the states. These bastard state
governments and the northern carpet-baggers moved in to finish the butcher job the "North" had started and picked the carcass clean. In the post-reconstruction era, those former slaves were the only target Southerners had access to. The Jim Crow laws were just one of the ways
these defeated Southerners could lash out. Night riding, poll taxes, lynching... but they still couldn't get back at those Northerners who raped and murdered the "South". I can look out my window 140 years later and still see the effects.
When you win a war, you write history - hence the incredibly inaccurate history books that whitewash the complex issues of America's
darkest time. The harsh reality is the majority of Northerners and Southerners didn't really care that much about the immorality of slavery. And definitely did not care enough to die for it. All wars are over money. Religion, liberty, and expansion, they are all excuses to go to war for money. Freeing slaves was just an excuse. Lincoln was dictator -no matter how benevolent- and his actions cost the United States 1 million American lives. To what end? The slaves would have been freed anyway. What was accomplished? The "South" was brought back into servitude. That's it. To produce goods and tax revenue and never question the Union again. Was it worth it?
Can you honestly say things would be worse if the "South" had won?