Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”Well, no. The Confederates fought for the right of white men to govern themselves, and to also forcibly govern black men.
It is a real tragedy that the secession movement was tainted by and based on the desire to perpetuate and expand slavery. The idea of secession in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
Well, no. The Civil War was not fought over slavery. Economics: Northern mercantilism. Slavery was already becoming uneconomical (cotton prices, corn the new cash crop) Lincoln freeing the slaves was an after thought—and he only freed the slaves in southern states. Missouri? U.S. Grant? Had slaves.
Well, no. The Confederates fought for the right of white men to govern themselves, and to also forcibly govern black men.
Actually the Civil War started over economic trade, slavery was a later side issue that came into being to find another way to beat up the Confederates on. Although slavery was wrong, Lincoln really did not care one way or the other. I think if the South had won, IMHO, I think slavery would not have lasted too long, maybe by 1900 it would have been gone with the advent of the internal combustion engine and the electric motor. Beyond that, speculating, there could have been a drive to resettle freed slaves in Africa, most likely Liberia. I'm into "alternate history," i.e., "what-if."
There is a darker version of a Southern victory where the South lost WWI and they became the analogue of Nazi Germany where they had concentration camps and the Blacks took place of the Jews. I doubt it would have gone that far, just my take.
It is a real tragedy that the secession movement was tainted by and based on the desire to perpetuate and expand slavery. The idea of secession in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
Agreed. Secession happened many times, peacefully and not peacefully. Take Czechoslovakia, they split peacefully, also the old USSR split with relative peace.
It comes down to this. Unless the two, or more, parties agree to a peaceful split, it comes down to the one who is seceding where if they have enough force to stand on their own and tell the party they are breaking off of to "go fly a kite" and fight them off well enough to make it too much of a cost for the unionists to keep them in the union. You got to be able to cash the checks you write. A big plus is recognition from other countries, preferably other foreign powers with the ability to broker a deal favorable to you and/or provide you with military aid.
Some examples, had the South won Gettysburg, there was word the UK would come in to broker a deal and/or aid the South. If you go by the
John Titor story, the rebels, which Titor was a part of were greatful to the Russians launching nukes to some of our cities since those were enemy strongholds. Actually, the Russians were worried because they did not know who was in control over here.
Well, that's my take.