Anyone in any position of influence & control, whether it politics or business, whether an American or European, understood at least by the 1850s, if not earlier, the promise a unified US held in terms of world power. Any nominal projection of immigration and birth rates could easily predict the sum total population and economic power the US would exert in a relatively short amount of time. (Which was proven 50 years later in 1917.)
Banking, finance and commercial interests all had a stake in this outcome. It was inevitable - as long as the Union held. So, what occurred in 1861 is essentially the same thing that happened in Catalonia last weekend. There is no way on earth that a separation was going to be allowed. One side can advocate abolishing slavery, the other self-determination or whatever cause du jour floats their boat.
It was always about preserving the Union, and not exactly the noble reasons espoused by Lincoln, et al. Rather, it was simply a raw exercise in power, no different than GBs attempt at defeating the Revolution. If you think you can pull it off, go ahead and try, but that doesn't mean the controlling power is going to let you escape without a fight.
The North went to war to preserve the Union and won. The South went to war to preserve slavery and lost everything.
Great post and very true.
Nonsense.
In fact, in March 1861 Lincoln offered to maintain peaceful relations and told secessionists they could not have war unless they themselves started it.
Lincoln was fully prepared to keep military "hands-off" the Confederacy.
But he was not going to let them grab whatever they wanted without consequences.
Jefferson Davis & company took Lincoln's words & actions as acts of war and so started (Fort Sumter) & formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
semantic: "It was always about preserving the Union, and not exactly the noble reasons espoused by Lincoln, et al.
Rather, it was simply a raw exercise in power, no different than GBs attempt at defeating the Revolution."
Of course it was about protecting the Union from Confederates' aggressive actions to destroy it.
But protecting slavery (Confederates) and freedom for slaves (Unionists) were never far from the top of the list of reasons for war.
To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.
And yet people really believed in the country, the flag, the union, and fought and died nobly for that cause.
By your logic, idealism is only possible in conflicts in a country that would never have much materially and would never matter much in the world.
In fact, richer and more successful countries are very good at arousing idealism and emotion in their citizens.
Turn you argument around. Are all of our feelings of patriotism today based on greed and materialism?
If that's not true for us today, why would it be true for people and their leaders in the past?
Of course it was (as it should be) and that stands as Lincoln's noble reason.