Sure there was. It's in all the history books.
I never mentioned any "lost cause" as you PC Revisionists like to call it.
Mention or not, it's what you're embracing.
As for your claims that just because there was a war of Independence that means the two sides would have continued to be at loggerheads, I would point out the history of Britian (and Canada) vis a vis the US does not bear out this claim.
It took 134 years for the U.S. and the UK to unite in time of war. And in the interim there were several occasions where the two sides almost came to war again.
The two sides would have had plenty of reasons to cooperate and have productive relations.
And just as many reasons, if not more, for conflict.
No there wasn't. And as usual, you just came here to start a pissing contest - not because you had anything to say on the topic at hand.
Mention or not, it's what you're embracing.
No, we're talking about the present day US and whether or not secession would be preferable to a bloodbath and/or how secession might be done. But as usual, you are utterly obsessed with one topic and desperate to have a pissing contest....which is why you always start them.
It took 134 years for the U.S. and the UK to unite in time of war. And in the interim there were several occasions where the two sides almost came to war again.
Uniting in time of war was not required to have good productive trade relations.
And just as many reasons, if not more, for conflict.
No they wouldn't. Each side would have had plenty of territory, natural resources, access to the sea, etc. There would have been no need for ongoing conflict just as there was no need for it between Canada and the US.
You make his point for him. They did not come to war again.
Also, one of those times was when Lincoln's people grabbed some confederate officials under British protection. Lincoln wisely ordered them released. "One war at a time." he said.