[Colonel Kangaroo]

My feeling is that if Lincoln had not prevailed, we would have seen a 20th century marked by an American people divided under two rival federal governments. Not only would American power have been divided in the face of the rest of the world, but tension in North America would have pushed both Washington and Richmond into stronger positions with respect to their states. The federal government in Richmond was also moving toward greater powers to the detriment of the Confederate state governments. I don't see how that would abate under the pressure of an intra-American cold war.

[DoughtyOne]

I look at what takes place today, and I draw comparisons. California has been overrun by citizens of a foreign nation. Our federal government is loathe to pay out the costs of the foreign citizens add to our state's expenses. In addition we now have a president who makes no pretense at all about courting the state for support. When mudslides ripped through several communities in Southern California, federal aid was refused. There was no such refusal for counties affected by Florida's hurricanes.

What happens if a state in the union decides to break away in the future? Do we have another civil war?

What protections does a state like California have, if the federal government tells it to go to hell, forces unfunded mandates upon it, allows it to be inundated by foreign souls, but won't support it in return.

I do belive that Lincoln's object lesson still carries weight.