Was the U.S. Civil War a "Good" War?

Growing up, I was taught in school that there were at least three good American wars, possibly more, but three were in the canon of sacred wars, immune from criticism:

1. The Revolutionary War
2. The Civil War
3. World War 2

Of these, I still believe that World War 2 was a justified war.

The Revolutionary War may have been the least justified. The main instigators were not the poor, but the wealthy, who demanded less taxation and greater control over domestic affairs. Remaining within the British Empire, the United States might have benefited from the future British decision to outlaw slavery, thus avoiding the Civil War. In time, the U.S. would have been as free of colonial domination as Canada is today, but without so much loss of life.

About the Civil War, I have doubts, mainly based upon the fact that over six hundred thousand Americans lost their lives. The vast majority of these casualties were incurred on land. At the same time, the Union naval blockade may have been the single greatest factor destroying the war-making capability and economy of the Confederate South. The Union possessed a navy far superior to the Confederacy. In my opinion, Lincoln was too hasty to bring the South back into the fold. After the Confederates in Charleston fired upon Fort Sumter, Lincoln used that as a pretext to begin a bloody land war that lasted about five years. As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln's conduct of the war was abominable. His choice of generals was poor, particularly in the early years. If one's heart and mind is set upon waging war, one had better be extremely good at it.

A better strategy would have been to maintain a naval blockade and simply wait for the South to return, with the single condition being the abolition of slavery. Lincoln instead committed the North to an immediate invasion which led to great loss of life and wealth and bitterness for generations to come. Lincoln was not, after all, a great President. A great President would have brought the South back without hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was entirely within the realm of possibility.

World War Two was completely necessary due to the nature of the enemy: evil and very powerful, posing a threat to civilization itself. Europe embodies progressive civilization. A world without Europe is unthinkable; and more to the point, a world without England or France, both beacons of democracy, is unthinkable. Look anywhere else in the world and it is difficult to find countries where free speech is sacred and human rights are respected, with the exception of the New World and Europe. Whether the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified or not is debatable, but of less importance than the ultimate victory in both theaters of war (Atlantic and Pacific) of the Allied Powers. The Axis Powers represented the closest approximation to absolute evil the world has seen in modern times. There can't be much question about whether the Axis Powers would have used nuclear weapons, had they developed them. The mistakes made prior to World War Two have to do with a failure by the West to appreciate the threat posed by Hitler and the advisability of stopping a growing problem early in its development.

The Bush Administration attempted to draw a parallel between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, which is laughable at best and never really caught on with the American public.