It took King George seven years to come to that conclusion. The Confederacy could have realized that they weren't going to win their war in a lot less time than that and halted the "meat grinder" even sooner.
The war was bloody? Well what do you expect when you invade someone's home?
You constantly ignore the fact that it was the Confederacy who chose to start the conflict. So if you want to complain about "invasions" then you need to accept that the South kicked the hornets nest and have nobody but themselves to blame for getting stung.
And yet no criticism for the fact that the Union would have kept them in ACTUAL SLAVERY had the South just stopped fighting earlier?
Since slavery was not the reason why the North was fighting then no.
You need to put your moral contempt on those people who thought the issue was negotiable. That Union was going to leave slavery intact. They didn't care about slavery, they cared about stopping Independence, and nothing else.
Slavery died as a result of the war, though it was not the primary goal of the Union's fight. But it was dead; the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment saw to that. So the South should be criticized for attempting to continue it through other means.
I think massive casualties would have shortened that time frame with a rational leader.
You constantly ignore the fact that it was the Confederacy who chose to start the conflict.
No, I do not. In fact I have pointed out to others arguing on the same side as I, that the attack on Ft. Sumter was what cost them Independence. They shouldn't have done it.
Now I will point out to you that nobody was killed in the attack, and the response to it was excessive and disproportionate.
Since slavery was not the reason why the North was fighting then no.
Oh, we have another admission that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery. Good. So what was the North fighting for?
Slavery died as a result of the war, though it was not the primary goal of the Union's fight. But it was dead; the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment saw to that.
And yet in all these discussions regarding the Civil war, for some reason the argument generally breaks down to the issue of Slavery instead of the issue of Independence. It's just like the Abortion debate where people argue "Choice" instead of "Dead Baby." It is a deliberate skewing of the issue away from the salient point into something which proponents regard as defensible.
Nobody wants to defend the violent repression of other people's freedom and independence, so they make the past actions more palatable by proffering a less objectionable reason for fighting. "To end Slavery."
That it isn't true doesn't matter. They want and need it to be true because it is the only thing of which they can think that can give them moral justification for what happened.