You have it backwards, secession would have kept the peace. Slavery would have imploded on its own as it did elsewhere in the world. The North and South would likely have reunited.
And, it would have been cheaper for Lincoln to purchase the slaves and set them free, than to wage war (which killed over 500,000). You keep buying into the idea of empire - and that a nation has to stay large and powerful in order to protect its citizens. Consider Switzerland, which Hitler couldn't touch... --- On Thu, 9/24/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: NMC Several Founders owned slaves - why the succession was wrong To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 7:39 PM The succession of the southern states was predictable based upon the belief that individual states were very much like independent countries, and at the time of the nation's founding, that was the perception. Lincoln was right regarding the importance of keeping the nation's states together, because quite frankly, the USA probably would not exist had the south succeeded in succession. Indeed, the military might of the North and South would not likely be directed toward common enemies, as the alliances arising from successful southern succession would be in stark contrast to those forged with the north. Would we ever see peace in North America? Perhaps, but not until we'd suffered several more wars, some of which would have been introduced by rival European nations. Jerry aka LGO -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
_______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
