WHAT a QUESTION. I may be wrong about this, but I am one of the few Southerners on Harnu right now, so should probably take a shot at this. Sadly, the issue of the Civil War is still alive and well in the minds and hearts of many that I grew up with. It is actually pretty good entertainment to go to one of dozens of battle re-enactments that take place all over the South.

Why was it fought? Strictly speaking, the war was about the desire of the Confederate states to secede from the Union. But the root cause of the secession was about slavery. In short, the agricultural economies of the South were very much enabled by slavery and therefore the Southern states opposed the abolition of slavery.

Who profited most? This is a tough question. On balance, I think most people would say that America as a whole profited from the outcome of the war, given that the union was preserved and an entire people group was emancipated and set free. The war also set in motion - in earnest - the grand American experiment that we all observe today: many, many people groups under one nation.

Did the ends justify the means? Another really tough question. I don't know if the benefits from any war are ever - looking back at it - easily reckoned as having been worth the cost. It is difficult to say what would have happened if two nations had literally been born instead of going to war to preserve the union. That's really the analysis here, and I have no idea. I know that I wish that we'd found some other way to end slavery than through a war; I can say that.

Re: Obama as a Democrat. This issue gets brought up all the time in the more global political circles. While it is true that the Republicans were the major drivers of the move to end slavery, the Democratic party is probably more credited with the enactment and subsequent enforcements of Civil Rights in the United States. This explains a lot of the transition of voting allegiances and current motivations these days I believe.

Re: Lincoln as a Republican today. Probably not. He implemented income tax and was pretty moderate in his views on most issues. Today's Republican is, from what I can tell, pretty hard-core conservative across the board.

Here's my take James, The civil war was fought because the Southern wealthy cotton farmers felt the new Northern Industrial age would be soon establishing a stronger national government. The South felt they wanted their own rules and would split off the nation on their own path. Actually the American Nation being held together and living under a strong constitution worked out well for the South mostly. The Industrial age was soon exceeding the farmers in egports and profits.

Just my opinion: Abe Lincoln only conceeded a slavery freedom due to his support of the idea, we should try upholding the constiotution. Lincoln.was aware that Rome had used the call of immigrants with the freedom of speech, religion, and equality...unlike other groups at the time. So lincoln new our constitution was born of the successful Roman creed for living free, Lincoln would not understand the Republican party being held hostage by one powerbroker behind the curtains giving the boot to any bipartisan idea members. Sherman was just a soldier and had no business making any political decisions... as it is today and always should be. Look at Japan's path after the wealthy inserted millitary politicians to control the country. The tail soon wagged the dog and to war the millitary went!

Slavery issues had a slight political advantage for the North industriels as they had little need for slaves anyway. The civil war was not much about slavery freedom.

Most importantly...the history of black slaves from Africa uniting with the native indians and creating large clans were a larger threat to the nations health taht made the civil war interesting. The historians were too proud to admit how organised excaped negros intelligently could do fierce battle.

On a personal note, my grandfather, right before he died, who had never voted in a presidential election voted for President Obama at age 86 and likened him to Roosevelt.

I am no #Civil_War history buff-far from!- but I do understand the shift from Republican to Democrat politics and it was directly tied to Roosevelt and the social programs, labor organizing and push for civil rights created during the Great Depression. The democratic platform itself changed.

Interesting stats:

Southerners (opposed to Black voting) provided 90% of Democratic electoral votes in 1920 and only 25% in 1936.

In 1932, 70% of the Black votes went to Hoover (Republican) over Roosevelt but by 1936, 75% of Black votes supported Roosevelt.

by 1936, Catholic, Jewish and Black organizations became more prominent, fighting for #civil_rights and supporting New Deal economic legislation. Jews and Blacks also aligned under anti-lynching legislation, as both people were terrorized by southern lynching.

Votes on anti-lynching legislation shows the huge political shift: In 1920, only 8 House Democrats supported it but in 1937, 171 of 185 democrats supported it.

As far as Civil War goes, I recommend Howard Zinn's History of the United States and reading about African American history. War was/is about profit.

Most kids growing up in American public schools (in the North) learn that the Civil War was a moral war about ending slavery. And therefore, when one sees a confederate flag waving from someone's house-yes, it happens even in the Pacific NW, the immediate reaction is, "They must be racists." That is the mainstream, progressive cultural view.

Well, I don't entirely agree that the war was fought over slavery (though slavery was certainly a component). It's my understanding/interpretation that the war was based on economics, and a large portion of Southern economics were slavery driven (though not all) - but those who were slave owners did have substantial political power. Most southerners who fought in the war never owned a slave, so to say it was about slavery doesn't seem to capture the whole story. However, the south was largely an agrarian based economy - so it produced a lot of raw goods that were used by either the North or England/France to turn into final goods. And so the north wanted to keep those products cheap (to fuel their economy) whereas the southerners wanted to sell to the highest bidder. So tariffs, taxes, economic priorities created a lot of division between the northern and southern states, which led the south to secede.

There is some speculation that a big reason the Emancipation Proclamation was made was because the British (and/or French) were close to coming to the aid of the south before the statement was made (because they wanted the south's raw goods) but then couldn't politically aid them (since they'd in effect be supporting slavery).

I honestly can't think of who profited most (perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be, 'who suffered the least?') since the war wasn't really 'good' for anyone (except maybe a few generals who benefitted politically, like Grant, who became President later as a result). And I think both sides did a lot of things that they'd come to regret later, so I don't know that the ends justified the means for either side.

As for the last bit, Republicans were much different than they are now - so Lincoln and the current Republican party in reality have very little in common (regardless of the name).

Thanks guys :) It's been great reading everything you all said, and regarding Zinn, I have that book already :D i just thought, given how much I enjoyed the subject at university, it would be worth asking genuine Americans, rather than just a lecturer or something.

For anyone who has caught on from now, feel free to add your opinions on everything.