How do you explain that the North wasn’t financially destroyed by Southern secession?
This is a fascinating question. It demonstrates a dichotomy in your thinking that is alien to me. Can you see what is wrong with your question?
Can you explain to me what is wrong with your question?
I am reminded of the time I was at a high school event in which they had a hypnotist. He hypnotized someone into forgetting the number 7, and then asked this person a series of questions to which the answer was "7", and watching this person being unable to wrap his mind around the answer "7" was both astonishing and hilarious.
That is the feeling I get from you when I see you ask your question.
Yes, why did a subsequent consequence for an event that didn't happen, not happen?
Well, the event didn't happen did it? So why would a consequence occur for an an event that was prevented from happening?