The U.S. was never going to survive as a unified country as long as you had a scenario where the southern states could control the flow of trade through the Mississippi River system (including the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio Rivers). The power brokers in the mid-19th century also recognized that the future settlement of the West would be hampered unless the powers of state governments were diminished and the Federal government was given a level of authority that had no solid foundation in constitutional law. The power to charter national corporations and establish a standard railroad gauge, for example, was absolutely essential for the country to be settled and developed as quickly as it was.
Correct. In more general terms, the North fought the war because they thought it was in their best political and economic interests.
But it makes people feel better to think that Lincoln “fought to free the slaves.”
The later is at least arguably covered under weights and measures. But national corporations are not authorized by the Constitution. That’s a state matter.
I believe this is correct. What would have happened is that Southern trading ports would have supplanted New York as the dominant economic force in the region. I believe the Washington/New York business axis understood this, and felt it was absolutely essential to their continued survival to destroy Southern efforts to become independent of their economic control.
I think that if the South had been left alone, it would have devastated the Original Union economically, and it would have eventually dominated and overcome the original Union.
To get an idea of why I think this, just look at the map of "Red" that constitutes our national elections. The Southern influence still spread into the MidWest. It would have spread more if they had been able to keep their wealth and economic activity.
Yes, the Union would likely not have survived, but the Confederacy would have eventually supplanted it. At least this is one possible scenario I see.