Nobody has that kind of clairvoyance. We make decisions based on what we can see at the time. We take possible future outcomes into account but none as remote or unlikely as that.
Historical outcomes aren't as predictable in prospect as they are in retrospect. Any historical outcome is the result of hundreds or thousands of factors and decisions. You'd probably kill people as babies because of what they might do later on, but there are many other less radical interventions that might prevent bad consequences.
No, i'd follow the principles laid down by the founders (and Jesus for that matter), of not coercing people into doing what you wanted, and hope for the best.
They wanted to leave, i'd rather they didn't, but I recognize that they felt that way, and so I would not have stood in their way.
I abhor the idea that you should force people to associate with each other if they don't want to associate with each other. What possible long term good can come from coercion? If we reject the idea of slavery, why would we embrace coerced association? Is it not built on the same philosophical foundation as slavery?
Nobody has that kind of clairvoyance. We make decisions based on what we can see at the time. We take possible future outcomes into account but none as remote or unlikely as that.
Some things are more easily predicted than others. For example, it's pretty easy to predict that socialists will eventually bankrupt any country in which they take charge. It might not be possible to predict when, but that it will happen is a pretty safe prediction.