[4CJ]

[T]o condemn blacks to untold decades of slavery and bondage. That is not "peace."

It's not war - slavery ended peacefully in numerous other countries without waging war. In two countries even after Lincoln's war. And if the intent of the union was to abolish slavery, why didn't the United Stated invade other countries to end the practice, and why hasn't it invaded countries which practice slavery now?

If the preceding was justification for ending slavery, would that have justified England invading the US to end it before the war?

[Zack Nguyen]

I think your analogy is wrong. England is not in the United States. Neither are these other countries of which you speak. Slavery was happening in America, and that is unacceptable. Frankly I find highly suspect the notion that somehow slavery would have "died off" in a "short" period of time if Lincoln would have just "let things take their course." A feeling of inherent superiority amongst Southern whites was deeply ingrained.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's not war - slavery ended peacefully in numerous other countries without waging war. In two countries even after Lincoln's war.

In every single case of slavery's demise, it took government action to do it and it was done in the face of strenuous opposition from the slave holders themselves. Regardless of when it was done, the end of slavery in the United States would not have been easy or, in all probability, peaceful.