McGrath of Harlow and Bobert,

From what I've read, I would agree with you both that the so-called "Civil War" was a mess and a misunderstanding. Though the slaves were freed, the cost in lives, in injuries, and in lingering bitterness was immense. It is speculation, of course, but I would also guess that the war was avoidable and that, as in Brazil, the slaves would have been freed anyway.

Jack the Sailor,

Slavery and white supremacy and secession are related issues, but they are not the same issue. There were, for example, non-whites who owned slaves. There were small farmers who were white supremacists, but who opposed slavery as unfair competition. Some people opposed slavery as cruel and degrading, but still thought that whites were superior. The slave states were divided on secession. Maryland, Kentucky, and Deleware didn't secede. Missouri and eastern Tennessee were bitterly divided. The northwestern part of Virginia seceded from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the U.S. It was a mess.

However, four things are clear:

1) Had there been no secession, there would have been no war,
2) Had Lincoln and the gang not opposed secession by force of arms, there would have been no war,
3) Lincoln et al rallied the North to fight "for the Union", not to fight for racial equality, and
4) Although the war started in 1861, the Union waited until January 1, 1863, to proclaim that slaves in the C.S.A. were free, and waited until the war was OVER before freeing (on December 18, 1865) slaves in the UNION.   

Hence, it seems clear that the war was not fought over white supremacy, nor was slavery the direct cause of the war. Slavery was a huge issue, but the issue about which the bullets actually flew was secession.

Kent