You pompous, self-righteous Europeans were happy to side with the South to ensure your supply of cheap cotton. Sure, you banned slavery a few years before the US, but you figured the South could maintain your supplies if they won the war. England and France eagerly accepted Confederate ambassadors and traded as much as possible via blockade runners with the South. France under Napoleon would have sent Maximilian north from Mexico if the Brits had shown any inclination to support them. It took the US army after the war to kick Max out of Mexico and give it back to the Mexicans. England almost started a war with the North over the Trent affair. Don't preach to us about slavery and domination. Look in the mirror.

20-20 Hindsight is great. I am glad I did not live in that period of our nation's history and have to have made the incredibly hard decisions. Slavery was tolerated by the founders only because it stood in the way of ratification of the constitution. It was put on the shelf to be dealt with at a later date. That date had arrived by mid-century as most other countries had abolished slavery previously. The Republican party was founded on the basis of eliminating slavery and their accession to power galvanized the status quo. Much of what is written here is true regarding the economic factors, European designs, etc., but the fact remains that the South's fear of eliminating slavery is what prompted them to act. As a republic we lost a lot to the federal government, but would you prefer that we were now two nations? Slavery would have ended sooner or later, and that antebellum way of life would have changed eventually. Today the federal government has way overstepped its bounds by pols who have to pass laws that help ensure their re-election. But that's fodder for another forum.