While slavery was certainly a big factor in causing the Civil War, it really wasn't the REASON. The war was not a slavery vs abolition war, and many (if not all) of the Northerners were just as racist as their Southern counterparts. In fact, Lincoln is on record as saying that (and I am paraphrasing here) if he could keep the Union together as a slaveholding country, he would do so. For Lincoln, it wasn't about slavery, he really didn't care much about it. He just wanted to preserve the nation.

@EagleBlast:
|> The south wanted to succeed, they had no right to do so, many of their citizens did not want to until propaganda was flung against the government, and it was handled like what it was; A rebellion that needed to be squashed.

Please share your opinions on the (attempted) independence / rebellion of Taiwan versus mainland China and oh, I dunno, the war of independence / rebellion of the United States versus England...

(English is your native language, right? Could you please use the correct word "secede"; while "The south wanted to succeed" is grammatically correct, it means something entirely different.)

Eagle, I think this is a great example of why the average (ie poor, non-slaveowning) Southerner fought. Again, paraphrasing, but a Southern soldier, when asked why he was fighting the Union, replied that he was fighting because the "Yankees" invaded his homeland.

I don't think I need to point out that slavery was a terrible institution, but remove yourself from what you now know (or believe), and just imagine that someone is invading your home and trying to tell you what to do. I wouldn't enjoy it much, but I'm a stubborn bastard.

m1919, your posts are a clear showing of why and how A in the original post is true.

@Perrin I never said "what if the nazis won," although I think some of you guys (including you) are big nazi and confederate lovers. You cant justify hitlers plans to eliminate races so germans could inhabit the world, or that the confederates breaking off half for slavery is justice.

why would you say im wrong eagleblast? i said that they wanted to protect their way of life. which is what these other people are saying. "replied that he was fighting because the "Yankees" invaded his homeland. " there were conflicts about states rights from the begging. the south wanted to right to own slaves and that was what their economy was based on. their way of life.now obiously most people didnt own slaves which is a fact. but the southern people didnt want to be threatened by the north. there is nothing wrong with what the south did and they felt very strongly about their cause. the entire southern region hs suffereed since the end of he civil war because of how hard they fought. they brought themseleves to nothing using all their resources to go to the war. also the fact that they didnt industrialize is a major issue.

this is becoming completely droll because people arent making good arguments. there would were obviously many reasons why they seceded. such as lincoln about to become president, john brown, states rights and such. can we talk more about the war stratgically. i think the south could have won the war if it werent for people like braxton bragg. also ive read a book on how lee wasnt as good as he came out to be. he was a master tactitian in defense but he tried to attack to much and that was his flaw. im dodgey today so what im writing sounds pretty bad. jackson said that lee made the mistake of attacking too much. people like jackson, longstreet and stuart were key to success and unfortunately they died. i do think it was a good strategic move going into the north in the sense that there was also very very low moral in the north. they were having those draft riots and such so a key vicotry there would have porably ended the war. after gettysburg there wouldn't have been muc hthey could do i believe. they could raise another army but it would be completely green and destoryed by the veterans of the army of virgina.

theres so mcu hto talk about

I think one thing we can all agree on in this thread is hitler deserves to be dead (unless your neo-nazi, then your just messed up), and the south could've had a more justified cause if slavery wasnt on the top 3 causes of departing from the union.

Winners do write history however, and I know in school we mostly study about the issue of slavery and the south the most in my history course, thats all we ever hear about. This creates the illusion that slavery caused the civil war, not states rights vs national government. If you live in the south you might understand more clearly, because the people whenever talking about it like to say it wasnt just slavery.
As for The axis powers, can't say much for them. The German people are the victims of Nazi Germany. I can recall one former Wehrmacht soldier saying "Its never the ones who start the war who fight it." Very much true, the people who were in nazi germany had a whole generation that was born under nazi propoganda and had no real connection to the outside world. If only hitler was the one fighting on the front, how much people couldve survived. With the Japanese, they felt the pressure of a booming population and no resources to support. Once again the government(warlords) made the decisions, they chose to wage war, and they had religion inspired troops to their cause. As for the Italians, mussolini wanted to expand the italian empire and regain its glory, sometimes in a more ambitious way. The people fought for it in dreams of an empire greater then Rome, but when the allies came knocking on Italies door, the troops did the right thing, either out of cowardice or justice, I've never heard the insight of the troops from italy.
So is it the people we should call antagonist in World War 2, or are they propoganda bombarded, brainwashed slaves of their dictators and warlords ambitions. The victims of world war 2 were the conquered and the people of the axis powers. I dont have much insight on japan or italy, so kindly correct me if you can.

I'm from the South, and have grown up my whole life with certain Southerners saying slavery had very little to do with the civil war. In my opinion these people are either ignorant of American history or simply disingenuous, usually the latter. These are the same people who enjoy flying the confederate battle flag on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (but strangely, not at other times). Charming.

I don't think Confederate Southerners were bad people, or that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee et al were dishonorable men. Quite the contrary. They were honorable men. But one can be honorable and still be wrong. Confederate Officers and Politicians, courtly and noble as they might have been, were in the morally shaky position of defending a region whose entire economy was based almost entirely on slavery (as someone noted above). People who grew cotton needed (or thought they did) slaves to pick their crops and they and the other powers-that-be were willing to send hundreds of thousands of poor Southern boys to be slaughtered (as politicians so often are) in order to defend rich plantation owner's "rights" to keep their boots on someone else's neck. I don't fault the poor boy fighting for his beloved Tennessee or Georgia, but i fault the shitty institution that caused him to have to fight, and yes, I fault the short-sighted people who defended the shitty institution, honorable as they may have been.

Browning, I think your first mistake is taking the teaching of a high-school American history class as the gospel truth.

All everyone on this post can do is correct, your one of them texasjohn you read the first paragraph and then spen 5 minutes comming up with an insult. You disagree with my post and do that neo-nazi. No-fucking-idea how it has to do with highschool history class, I just think it makes you, yourself, and all of the other bigots like eagle and perrin feel better, I guess its your drug. You know what i think, I know the guys commenting on this post took average history class in highschoo, read a couple of sentences on a wikipedia post and call yourself experts, I must say if thats what makes you feel better, then you are one messed up lifeless 20 year old

|> You disagree with my post and do that neo-nazi.

That's not just a pointless insult, it's also a very serious accusation. I suggest you grow up and stop shouting random insults at people who disagree with you; sooner or later you're going to run into someone who'll sue you for libel (and win).

|> You know what i think, I know the guys commenting on this post took average history class in highschoo, read a couple of sentences on a wikipedia post and call yourself experts,

And I think none of them claimed being an expert, they just gave their opinion and showed (not said, *showed*) why your opinions are mostly wrong. If that leads you to conclude they're experts, that says far more about you than it does about them.
Also, it's not just about where people get their education; how much actual insight they gained (as opposed to merely being able to recite some facts) is far more important.