~95% of white male southerners (including my great great grandfather) didn't own a single slave.  I doubt they were willing to sacrifice their lives just so those rich plantation owners you speak of could keep their slaves.  There were far deeper political issues at stake.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Civil War actually furthered racial divisions in the South, helping to prolong racial issues well into the modern era.  I'm sure many looked upon freed slaves as a giant flashing sign saying "haha you lost", and I wouldn't be surprised if that created a strong sense of resenment towards the black race that lasted for decades, and still has struggled to fade. 

And the US was the only country that ended the practice of slavery through war (and an incredibly bloody war at that).  Every other country gradually outlawed slavery and came to terms with their racial issues in a peaceful manner, and the way in which things were handled here in all likelihood increased racial tensions at the time.

And just looking at the advent of the war shows what issues were at stake. Only the Deep South states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina seceded upon the election of Abraham Lincoln.  Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina only seceded AFTER arms were taken up against the Deep Southern states, once they saw that even the right of secession was being challenged.

From wiki (it's a crappy source, but whatever):

Deeper political issues that 95% of the normal people didn't give a shit about.  All they gave a shit about was if Black people would be able to walk around near them.  Sure rich people, or plantation owners had other interests, but we know why the masses cared about this and probably still to this day.  Come on don't give these guys who don't know anything about the south anything haha.

There were well over 100,000 free black men in the south, and less then 1% of white men owned slaves. It was not as much about slavery as people today would make it out to be. 10% of all free black men in New Orleans owned slaves (only place where these statistics were kept).

Do you think you would have half the nation today want to go to war, if the US passed a law that just screwed the top 1% richest people in the country?

Not remotely. Not then either.

Also, thousands of black free men fought for the south, and unlike in the north they fought integrated. The north have black regimens. Same was true for working conditions. In the south white and black men worked side by side all the time. In the north, if you hired a black man, white men would quit more times then not.

And lastly, the south was moving to abolish slavery anyway, they were just doing it at a slower pace.

It's really hard to get into the heads of people who lived so long ago, and look at all the factors and pick out what was important to them. If you dropped a man from today into 1855, Slavery would be the most important thing to get rid of. A 25 year old born in 1830 who grew up in those time, would not think like we do.

Wooh you need to check your cultural history on New Orleans, or mainly french cajun Louisiana.  There is quite a difference between them and well every other southerner then and now. 

"Some slaveholders were black or had some black ancestry. In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Free_black_people_and_slavery

That was 1830. The war was 30 years later, so more free black men had slaves at the time of the war.

Yes but Greek city-states aren't the best example, mainly because they were a Theocracy. Obivously its hard to tell because we look at it from a different stance, but there was no separation of church and state in Ancient Greece. There was never anything like that back then, because that was absurd then. So while having a from of democracy, is was also very religious which obviously conflicting theocracies will clash. Which the greek city-states did all the time. Not that they believed in different gods, but obvious we know that never plays into anything haha.

Well you are only proving what I said in the quote.  Seriously look up the history on New Orleans, or mainly french cajun Louisiana.  It isn't like the rest of the south during that time.  Still really isn't.  Main difference being its southern European roots and roots in Catholicism which is unlike the rest of the south. 

And none of this really has any relevance to the inital points.  Whehter or not there were a few select cases of blacks having freedom, you can't turn that mound of dirt into a mountain. 

Well the invasion of Macedonia with Philip the Great was the end of the city-states being independant. It wasn't the end of the city-states though because they florished in the Hellenistic time(that starts with Alexander the Great), but they weren't independant anymore.

Spartans also claimed to have been descended from Hercules him self, but they hardly ever fought a real war and they didn't consider them self a god at all! There's also a big difference between calling yourself descendant of Hercules and calling your self son of Zeus-Amon you know ;)

Alexander the Great was *considered* a living god, his father? Nope.

And don't forget that the other Greek city-states considered the Macedonians to be almost barbarians(but they were also greek, forget about the country that's called Macedonia today, they have no right to call them Macedonians as they can't even speak Greek.)