This is mostly true I think... the war wasn't about morality... it was about power.  Back then the US was much more decentralized... and the North and South were two oposing factions.  One ran on industrial power due to the industrial revolution, the other on slave power.  The north limited slave states being brought in to the future because they knew it'd give them the advantage since all new states would be industry powered and they could maintain trade advantages with the south... who otherwise could defeat tariffs and such.

Not that the South was completly states rights, had the situation been swtiched and the south could of outlawed factories or something, they would have.

Slavery has never been abolished because of morality, it's all been economics.  Slavery just outlived it's usefulness.  Heck Lincoln's big hope was that he could put all the slaves on a ship and send them back to Africa.

As for the random comment.  I wouldn't say Lincoln was a BAD president.  I would say he was an average president who replaced some REALLY bad presidents.

Of course being president is almost completly based on when you were elected.  George W Bush sucked because he started pointless wars at a time of peace.  Switch him and FDR  around and he probably would of gotten us in WW2 even faster, by using the same dirty tricks FDR used.

FDR, based on his actions on paper is by far our most despicable, abusive and power hungry president... yet because he got us in world war 2... everyone forgives him.

To add on your point(that I bolded)

The first country to abolish slavery was the UK. Guess who supported the southern states in the civil war?

I never said anything about morals but the idea that the South wasn't racist is just laughable. They wanted to keep their power over Blacks. The creation of the KKK after the war made that pretty clear.

Demcracies at war with each other (off the top of my head):

The United States of America vs the Confederate States of America

Allies vs Finland - Finland was allied with Germany against the Soviet Union at the time.

United States of America vs Vietnam - There was suppose to be an election to decide the government of Vietnam, but Ho Chi Min had support of 90% of the population so instead of allowing an election America installed a South Korea puppet state.

Israel vs Lebanon

Israel vs Palestine - Not exactly a war between two countries, but the Palestinians did elect Yasser Arafat and later Hamas into power, both of which supported fighting Israel using guerilla tactics and terrorism.

Russia vs Georgia - If you call that a war, but it would have been if Georgia wasnt so weak that they were unable to defend themselves.

_______________________

The term democracy is vague.  I would define how democratic country is by how many people can participate in government.  In modern America, about 75% of the population, or all adults over the age of 18 who are not felons can vote, but 200 years ago only white males could vote, measuring about 20% of the population.  In the Soviet Union, only members of the communist party could vote, consisting of about 10% of the population.  What is a democracy and what is not?  You could make arguments anyway, but obviously some are more or less democratic than others.

Democracies can and do declare wars on each other, is just far less likely because modern democracies tend to be highly similar socially and heavily integrated economically.  For instance, the United States and Canada are so intertwinned that a war would never make sense as continued cooperation with a very friendly country is much more beneficial than war.  On the otherhand, Israel and Lebanon have fought two wars because they do not have much in common economically or socially, though social (religion) would be the major factor here.

For racism to be the cause of the war that would mean the North would of had to of been less racist.

It wasn't.

Wow, the UK was the first country to abolish slavery? Are you sure about that?

Also, no one supported the southern states in the Civil War. I guess you could say that the U.K. showed favoritism to them, but that was mainly because of the cotton trade (which they needed for their textile industry). Or maybe that was the point you were trying to make. I can't tell.

Actually, slavery was the chief issue preventing Britain from joining in the war on the side of the South.

Britain had various reasons to join the fighting on the side of the South, from weakening American power in the Atlantic, to the fear of a belligerent North under Lincoln and how that might impact their American colonies, to protecting their interests in Southern cotton, not to mention the British felt they shared a cultural bond with the South (Plantation owners were seen as nobles of sorts, and the British felt Southerners had a certain "class" that Northerners had long since lost - read Sir Arthur Fremantle's writings on the war). However, given Britain's opposition to the practice of slavery, they were wary of actually fighting alongside the Confederates, something Lincoln knew all to well.

The British were on the verge of joining the South after the Union navy boarded British ships, demanding they hand over Southern Emissaries on their way to England, but Lincoln's late declaration of the war to be a crusade against Slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation put any plans for the English to aid the Confederates on hold. It was a brilliant move on Lincoln's part. The Proclamation did little but prevent the English from joining the fight. The Proclamation claimed that all slaves held in any rebellious states were henceforth free. Obviously Lincoln had no control over these states, and thus could not enforce the ruling, meanwhile the slaves held in states under Union control (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri) remained enslaved for another two and a half years until the 13th Amendment.

It was a genius piece of fluff writing, worthy of the politicians of today.

On a somewhat related note, here's a funny story: when the war first broke out, England sent 8,000 troops to the Canadian border, fearing an invasion from the North. 8,000 may have been a daunting figure up to that time, but the first real battle of the Civil War involved over 70,000 soldiers!

The civil war doesn't count, people. Democratic Peace theory strictly involves sovereign democracies, and even then a specific type of democracy (i doubt that adherents to Democratic Peace theory would consider Russia a democracy, for instance)

Not that i agree with them, but the limited application of Democratic Peace Theory has generally willed out, aside from the anamoly of WWII Finland (which emerged from the odd circumstance of Finland's absolute commitment against the Soviets)

Bolded: Yeah, his thoughts on colonization show that the North was really no different from the South in its view of the black race.

Underlined:  I would.  His unwillingness to simply let the South go began the costliest war in US history, and his prolonging of the war despite its unpopularity in the North (let alone in the South) only made things exponentially worse.  The South was absolutely ruined through the war. Entire cities were burned to the ground by Northern troops, from Atlanta* to Columbia.  In the case of Columbia, townsfolk weren't given so much as a warning before the fires were set.  Grevious war crimes were commited under his watch on top of a totally unnecesary war, resulting in the ruin of an entire nation.

*Granted, Sherman's victory at Atlanta helped Lincoln narrowly win re-election in 1864 over the Democratics, who favored ending the war and acknowledging the Confederacy's independence.  And that was with only Northern sates voting!

Even so, I feel like the US is stronger now then it would of been had the south left... even though the south in some ways has yet to even come all the way back from the Civil War.

A rival nation to the south greatly would of changed world events i would think as we would of been even more isolationist.  Who knows how WW2 plays out... or even WW1.  If one side supported the Allies, you'd think the other would the Axis.

Or maybe the South and North eventually would of recombined who knows.

I think the chances for negatives are more likely then positives though.