[r9etb]

Given time almost anything can happen. What's happened in Russia and South Africa in recent years is evidence of that.

Actually, let's suppose a bit further. If the South had won, would that really have been the end of it? I seriously doubt it. Much of the underlying cause of the war had more to do with westward expansion, and the question of whether new states and territories would be "free" or "slave" states.

A victory for the South would not have done much to stop westward expansion by either North or South, and it would undoubtedly have sharpened the conflicts over territories.

Overall, I think that even if the North had acquiesced to secession, the war would probably have started anyway, in the west. And even if the South had won, the war would have begun anew, in the west.

[cva66snipe]

Even being brought up in the south in a split region {East Tennessee} and for most of my life would have likely sided with the north I now no longer would. When I started looking more toward founders intent in my political thinking I would now support the CSA’s stand. I think it was much closer to what the founders intended for the nation even if it meant states withdrew from the Union. I think it was as such considered a states right to do so. This is not to be confused with some of the other rebellions which were local in general. But if the state assemblies passed a bill of secession and the governor signed such it should have been recognized as a lawful withdrawal form the Union.

In the case of the Civil War Smedley Butlers speech applies. For what it's worth there was some division within the south even among the Generals themselves as to the South's direction and intent. That division and some jealousy from those who had Jeff Davis's ear cost the south the war. Jeff Davis also like Lincoln became too focused on the industrialist namely the cotton industry rather than the intent of the founders and states rights. At least one CSA general told him as much was a thorn in Braggs flesh. :>}