It is true that the issue of the Union's indivisibility was one of the lasting effects of the Civil War.  I agree with JimO that the states would have the secession-of-last-resort trick in their bags, and I think they would use it to leverage themselves against federal power.  That said, I don't necessarily think it would have been a bad thing, as I envision the Founders to have wanted states to have more rights and independence than they do now.  Obviously, though, America would have turned out differently with this scenario.For a related thread on the question of whether slavery would have ended without the Civil War, go here.

You should check out some of the other threads we have going on here about similar topics – they address your point about African Americans.  I think that our view is that slavery would have died out as an institution because of technological advancements in other areas.  This might have happened in waves, though, with pockets of slavery existing in the South for longer periods of time than in other areas.  I imagine there would have been more successful slave rebellions as well….man has had an innate desire to break the bonds of slavery since Spartacus or before.  Also, the world was tiring of slavery during the 19th Century and likely seeing it as a dehumanizing institution.  I also think that the Civil Rights movement would have proceeded in some form or another, though perhaps not in the 1960s.  Discrimination would have continued anyway since I think that this is based at least in part on social/economic status.

It still amazes me that it took a hundred years to get the ball rolling on that. The south was what it was and it takes time to change generations of thinking. But you'd think the north would have pushed harder for civil rights. It shows me that the war really wasnt about slavery, for if the north and the federal government had beeen willing to expend hundreds of thousnads of lives to get rid of the institution they would have pushed harder for civil rights for the ex-slaves, especially in light of the Jim Crow laws. But they did not.

The North never pushed Civil Rights because they didn't give a damn about them, at least not for blacks.  The Civil War was about the SPREAD of slavery, not its existence.  The North didn't want slavery in their states for much the same reason that people hate immigrants - they are cheap competition for labor.  Most northerners didn't care if it existed in the South because they only grew cotton while the North was basing its economy on manufacturing, commerce, and small farms.  The South wanted to expand slavery into the northern states and territories so that they could take their slaves with them anywhere in the country.  That is what the Dred Scott case was all about and that is why the decision in the case, which made slavery national, is commonly viewed as the event that made the war inevitable.  The war became about the EXISTENCE of slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation which Lincoln used to end any possibility of British interference.  Up to that time there had been a lot of pressure on the British government to force the U.S. to accept international mediation, which would probably have lead to the permanent division of the country, and would have assured a steady supply of cotton to the British textile industry, which was the engine that drove the British Empire.  When the Proclamation made the war ABOUT slavery the  British knew that its people would never allow them to interfere because slavery had been banned in the Empire since 1837, I believe.  So the War was ultimately about economics and slavery, a nice combination of money and morality, which is at the core of much of history.  The bottom line is that the North did NOT want any of the "coloreds" to move there.  In fact, many states had laws before the war banning free blacks from living there.  The deal that gave the 1876 presidential election to the Republicans was all about keeping the blacks in the South and letting the southerners handle their "colored" problem any way they wanted, without interference from the federal government.  This deal was cemented in 1896 with the Supreme Court decision in "Plessy v Ferguson" which gave segregation its constitutional imprimatur.  Many historians say that the primary reason that the federal government got interested in defending black civil rights in the 1950's and '60's was that television coverage of the various racist actions in the country was giving the Communists a lot of ammunition in the struggle for control of the emerging Third World, which hurt the U.S. politically and economically as well as morally. So while the people involved were doing it out of conviction, the politicians were doing it for advantage.  What a shocker!!!

I think you hit it dead on. I firmly believe that the war, like most wars, are about money, politics, etc. and rarely have little to do with the propaganda surrounding the event that we are usaully force fed in high school text books.

That is why I consider most wars immoral - they are started to acquire some material gain and not over principle and are thus like the neighborhood bully who beats you up for your lunch money.  A war can acquire morality when one side is fighting for a principle, even if that principle is merely survival, like the kid who whips the bully and takes back his lunch money.  Then, if the principled side wins, it is considered a "good" war, but if the other side wins, well it is still often considered a "good" war because the winner gets to write the history books.  And then there is always the "unintended consequences" factor, which can be good or bad.  Our Civil War resulted in the end of slavery in this country, which was a good thing.  World War II ended in a victory for the moral side, a good thing, but also featured the development and use of thermonuclear devices, about as bad a thing as you could want.  The bottom line is that violent conflict is just about always bad, in so many ways, but unfortunately mankind, as a species, hasn't progressed far enough to avoid it.  Hopefully we will before we destroy the planet.

War and violence both. Think about the men who are sent off to war. They are told they are going to fight against evil and the spread of what ever, Mom, apple pie and all that. But even though they are told this they still come back with nightmares and emotional problems from what they were told was the right thing. It isn't natural for one human being to kill another, it's inbred. (there are exceptions of course, but these people aren't normal.) Politics and greed push this on the backs of the masses and they are made to go off and fight and die for the desire and ambition of other men.

Unfortunately things are not going to change anytime soon.  I'm coming to the conclusion that we should reinstate the draft, and this is coming from a Vietnam-era vet who spent 2 years as a cross-country hitchhiking hippie after service.  I think it should cover EVERYONE between the ages of 18 and 35.  No deferments unless you are physically or mentally unable to perform ANY duties.  For example, you can be confined to a wheelchair and still answer phones or work the register at the PX and can replace either an ablebodied soldier or a contract employee working to make some Halliburton clone rich.  That way the sacrifice, and the risk, is spread over the entire population.  No more avoiding service because you had "other priorities" or your daddy could get you into a stateside unit and you could play Steve Canyon, Fighter Jock, on the public dime.  You want to be an American?  Then serve America.  I would even offer service in the Peace Corps or Americorps, if they even exist anymore, as an alternative.  Have you ever read "Starship Trooper" and if you have seen that Piece-O-Sh-t movie of the same name, it has very little to do with the book.  One of the aspects of the book is that to qualify for citizenship, and the vote, an individual must volunteer for federal service and can then be assigned to the military or whatever the government deems the individual best suited for AND that there is a need for.  The enlistment period is limited so its not a lifetime committment, and you can even opt out at any point, even go AWOL and the only penalty is you do not qualify for citizenship.  The point is that if you are to have the privileges of citizenship you must have demonstrated a willingness to serve for the public good.  Not a bad concept.