Peacefully freeing slaves, even at the expense of it taking 20-40 more years to get rid of slavery, would've been better.

This is what Lincoln wanted to do. He planned to simply isolate slavery in the South and let it fizzle out on it's own (Which it would have). However, the South seceded anyways and then the gloves came off.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
-Abraham Lincoln

cept for the Emancipation Proclamation ruined that, and ruined any chance of peacefully ending the war.

Also, on another note, some southern general, were, ironically, abolitionists: Robert E. Lee, (who freed his slaves; in fact, one of his former slaves served as his bodyguard and chef during the war), for example.

Lee only joined the confederacy because Virginia did.

Tupac, what did the confederacy do to free black people kidnapped from the north? what has nearly every country done during a total war situation?

I'm not saying what the north did was right, just that what the southerners did even before the war was what caused them to have a smaller economy. remember that they (they as in the people in power, not innocent civilians) started the war. the south could have freed their slaves, like nearly every other country had done by that point.

knyte you are right about geography playing a role, but another reason was that southern politicians resisted federal infrastructure, so banks and investments, thus railroads, thus industry was nowhere near as heavy. especially by the time of railroads and coal power, the south could have integrated more with the north and not been so far behind.

also southern politicians and slavery supporters were very heavy handed and were fighting to impose laws and trade rules that would have hurt the north. there had been factioning since the early 1800s. both sides were attempting to subdue the other.

yes, both sides were extremely racist by today's standards, but one was quite a bit more racist than the other. maybe most abolition supporters were prejudiced and wanted to stay separated from blacks, but they still thought they were equal human beings and not property.

i read a big ass civil war book recently, and i wish i could remember the name so i could cite it. i hope everybody in this thread reads big ass books about the civil war cause it is a super complicated topic.

Difference is:
Today, in the south, races have integrated.

In the north, theres still the seperate (mostly) black, white, and hispanic communities. With self imposed segregation.

Edited 7/8/2015 00:27:38

Rednecks are often super nice to blacks. Not so much to Hispanics, but blacks are like cousins to rednecks. See Blake Shelton : Boys Round Here.

Rednecks are often super nice to blacks

I can attest to this. There were perhaps only two or three black kids in my high school, but they were often treated very well and were good friends with the much more numerous redneck crowd.

That awkward moment when your rural hometown of 5,000 people is less racist than a major city like St.Louis.

actually, having been to many cities and small towns across the east coast (my families travelled and moved a lot, suprisingly) and with all the relatives ive talked to, it seems that GENERALLY, the closer you are too big cities, the more racism you see.

There's more racism in big cities because of higher crime rates and poverty, etc.

yep.
specially in NJ.

Do we still openly claim NJ as our own?