If the civil war had not happened, would race relations in the U.S. be better?

Friendship will happen any time, anywhere, regardless of the social conditions. As far as "would race relations be better if the ACW never happened", that's a speculative question that can't really be answered. Even if it could, you need to define "better." From a white supremist's point of view, "better" mght mean "white suremacy/black subservience"; to a more balanced person "better" might mean "true racial requality."

For Derail, he must've been asleep in his history class. As weak as any argument about the degree that the issue of slavery played in the ACW, for anyone to say it "wasn't an issue until the last six months of the war" (i.e., Nov. 1864-April 1865) he obviously missed Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was delivered in 1862 and had an effective date of January 1, 1863.

I know that in the last 10 years, history in school teaches that the Civil War was fought over slavery (every society rewrites history). But the truth is, it was not. Slavery didn't become an issue in the war until the last 6 months of 1865. You obviously know this as you sort of answered your own question. But if there hadn't been a Civil War, the result would have been that the South would be a separate country right now. Actually not a bad idea considering the mess our current administration is creating.

Thats a really good question. I completely understand what your saying here. Unfortunately the Civil war was inevitable - it just wasnt a question of slavery - there were issues about the rights of the states, the powers of the federal government vs states, north vs south, industry vs agriculture etc - but it was slavery which brought fundamental flaws of the United States system of government to the surface.

The Civil war destroyed the agricultural economy of the southern states - which depended heavily on slaves. Slavery - as an institution was dying out elsewhere in the world - but the Southern states held on to the institution of slavery. Rich white landowners were very reluctant to give up their slaves - even at the height of the Civil war - using their slave ownership to give the white landowners exemption from fighting in the war. Many men fighting for the confederacy did not own slaves - they were poor farmers who went off to fight against what they saw as increasing Northern hostility towards the south.

The Civil war and Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves should have brought whites and african americans together. Why didnt it? Why did it take for the Civil rights movement in the 1960's - a century after the Civil war ended, to finally give many african americans rights? The Christian movement did nothing to end hositlity between whites and african americans for over a century - and i dont think it would have done anything to help end slavery.

Racism towards blacks as inferior went way back before Darwin. As early as the middle ages, Europeans believed that Africans - living in the hot arid areas - were much more adapt at working in tropical climates than Europeans - this way of thinking began the massive slave trade of moving Africans to work in hot areas such as the Carribean and the U.S. All Darwin did was to turn racism from a religious / social belief into a scientifically proven racial theory.

Your question is good - but if you really want to answer this question, look up the history of racism against African americans. Also look up African americans and slavery.

THIS HAS BEEN ASKED MANY TIMES BEFORE IF CIVAL WAR HAD NOT OF HAPPENED AMERICA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS ADVANCED AS IT IS NOW. MAYBE CUZ SLAVERY WOULD HAVE ENDED A BIT LATER.