Like the US and Canada? Yeah, that's been a source of constant tension since 1812. :)
The idea that the Civil War gave us big government is an exaggeration.
Not at all. The era after Lincoln was considered the worst period of corruption in American History. Big Government and Crony Capitalism were constantly scratching each others backs in an effort to enrich both Big Government and the Crony Capitalists.
Don't forget, Lincoln's political philosophy was "Mercantilism", and the 1860s saw the ascendance of this "Mercantilist" philosophy. The railroad land give away is a pretty good example of the sort of thing i'm talking about.
And do you really think that country founded on slavery -- whether the US or the CSA -- could be devoted to liberty for very long?
I think slavery would have eventually collapsed on it's own. As soon as the economic benefits of it waned, suddenly everyone in the South would have developed an instantaneous moral opposition to it.
Yes, i'm Cynical. :)
Like the US and Canada? Yeah, that's been a source of constant tension since 1812. :)
That was the most atypical situation imaginable. Britain was the greatest power on the planet. But it couldn't bring all its force to bear on North America. Both the US and Canada could expand westward, rather than into each other's territory. Therefore, there was peace.
A division of the US into two countries would have massively complicated things on the continent, with frictions between the USA and CSA, the USA and Canada, and the CSA with Mexico and the Caribbean. Not to mention the problem with the fate of the western territories.
Not at all. The era after Lincoln was considered the worst period of corruption in American History. Big Government and Crony Capitalism were constantly scratching each others backs in an effort to enrich both Big Government and the Crony Capitalists.
Compared to what came later, the size of government in the late 19th century was still small potatoes.
Don't forget, Lincoln's political philosophy was "Mercantilism", and the 1860s saw the ascendance of this "Mercantilist" philosophy.
Nonsense. Some people like to use "mercantilism" as the opposite of some laissez-faire that they imagine exists or existed and label every government economic policy as mercantilist. Historically, mercantilism was something different indeed. Tariffs alone didn't make for anything one could legitimately call mercantilism.
For that matter, your own thinking -- if that's what it is -- isn't untouched by mercantilist concepts: trade is a zero-sum game, one nation prospers at the expense of others, the goal is a positive balance of payments. Only you give to cotton the leading role that gold and silver had for the mercantilists.
I think slavery would have eventually collapsed on it's own. As soon as the economic benefits of it waned, suddenly everyone in the South would have developed an instantaneous moral opposition to it.
70 years later? There was still the fear Whites had of Blacks. And the planters' need to control their workforce. That wasn't going away, even if you got rid of slavery. There was still going to be some form of control or repression, most likely based on race. Not very conducive to liberty.