I think of all the major events of my lifetime and I couldn't really have predicted them, so it fascinates me that you can foresee the whole historical development of your alternative time line.
Of course, alternative time lines aren't reality, so you'll never know just how wrong your predictions are, nor can anybody disprove your theory about events that didn't happen.
I guess the lesson is, if you have a theory, even the kookiest, and you never admit that you might be wrong, you too can hijack and monopolize threads.
Get cracking people and come up with your own wackadoodle speculation.
I guess you have no familiarity with the development of the atomic bomb. Scientists at the time realized it was impossible to predict when a specific atom would undergo fission, but it was quite possible to predict what large collections of them would do with great accuracy.
You are attempting to redefine the premise of my argument by shifting focus away from the mass of humanity to individuals.
Of course, alternative time lines aren't reality, so you'll never know just how wrong your predictions are, nor can anybody disprove your theory about events that didn't happen.
They are the likely reality were it not for the intervention of a war to stop it. But let's set aside for the moment that this is what would have happened, and let us just suggest this is what I perceive would happen.
Is it such a far stretch to believe that if I can see this potential future, so too might those businessmen in the North who would have the most to lose if it should come to pass? If I can see it, so can they see it too. Indeed, there behavior is such that it virtually confirms that they could see this exact same future. Northern newspaper editorials rail about this exact thing happening, so I do in fact have proof that others in the North could see what I have described.
In fact, it is their complaining about it that set me on the path to considering it.
I guess the lesson is, if you have a theory, even the kookiest, and you never admit that you might be wrong, you too can hijack and monopolize threads.
You and others very much want it to be kooky. The alternative is that I am right and you are wrong, and that you have badly misunderstood the events of 1861.
Yes, when facing the prospect of my Civil War moral world view collapsing from assault by a gang of ruthless facts, I too would probably rather believe that someone is offering a kooky theory instead of am accurate description of the reality of the time.
My theory being correct means the North did something horrible and indefensible. It flips the narrative of who the bad guys were.