Ho Hum wrote:
What do you mean, had no right? The South and North couldn't possibly have peacefully co-existed; the war couldn't have taken the Confederates by surprise.
I'd be hard pressed to name a country that peacefully allowed part of itself to secede.
In the scheme of things, the Soviet Union broke apart pretty easily.
What I find so interesting is that US policy seems to be to allow for independent states to pop up, yet when the southern states tried to leave, there was a war. BTW, technically the war from 1861-65 was not a civil war. A civil war involves factions seeking control of the same government/country. The southern states wanted to establish their own country.
Another oddity: everyone today seems to think it was great that the US had a war of independence with GB because of serious and legitimate political issues of how to rule oneself as a land. However, when the southern states invoked a similar idea (that they should be allowed to set their own laws), everyone thinks that was a bad idea.
Slavery was stupid not just from a human rights standpoint (slavery had been going on for pretty much the entire history of mankind) but from an economic standpoint. At some point, the southerners would have realized that paying people to work is far more productive than having to buy and keep slaves. Eventually the practice would have died out on moral grounds as well (as it had in Britain).
Sorry for the rambling. I find this topic interesting albeit I am glad I grew up in the US versus the CSA (being born in Georgia).
I like the idea of an alternative history where Lincoln lets the south secede. What happens? Is there a war over the western lands later? Do any of those territories try to leave for the CSA? Does the CSA have the illegal immigration problems that we have currently? Does the CSA economy remain agrarian? Does MB, BMW, etc put auto plants in the CSA? The good news for the USA would be that Jimmy Carter would never be a US president. You would still likely get Barack though!