Then the author described the subsequent alternative history. I vaguely remember that North and South finally reunited.
"You raise a very interesting point. Like a recent book by Newt Gingrich and Bill Forstchen, you posit one change and then write the alternative history that would have resulted. I'll raise that very subject with Bill, tomorrow afternoon."
Here is a turning point that I'd love to see someone explore: the 1939 'U.S. v. Miller' decision (the only recent pure 2nd Amendment case), which Miller lost because his attorney never submitted a brief or appeared in front of the USSC, so that the Court relied on the government's (less than honest) representations, and ruled that no one has a 2nd Amendment right to own a short-barreled shotgun (which is restricted under the '34 NFA). Subsequent to that, no one has ever successfully challenged the NFA, and in '86 the government permanently limited the number of machine guns that the public could own by closing the NFA registry.
Note that there is a very long and detailed description of this case in John Ross' book, "Unintended Consequences." The case and all documentation itself appear at http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
I'm curious what a good historian could do with this. Maybe, if the 'Miller' case had been decided differently, the '68 Gun Control Act wouldn't have passed, or would've been ruled unconstitutional. Maybe the whole War on (Some) Drugs would be vastly different. Maybe our society would be full of very self-reliant, independent (from the government) people - as used to be the case - due to there being millions of machine guns in public hands. I don't know, but I'd love to see some informed speculation.