Actually, if secession was constitutional (and State secession was nowhere prohibited by the U.S. Constitution), then it was the north that initiated hostilities by refusing to remove federal troops from military installations inside seceded States. As I noted earlier, the constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue.
...and if having won, the South would have stopped then and there?
Why not? The goal of the seceding States was to detach themselves from their former union - not rule over it.
I don’t.
Congratulations. And perhaps you believe that the American colonies, 'after opening a war against Great Britain and having won, would NOT have stopped then and there'...
;>)
Victory in war changes things. Our intent was to separate from England. We did. Flush with that success and mindful that there was an entire continent to the west, well the rest is history.You seem to stay in the belief the South would have been content with just separating from the North. And then what? The North licks it’s wounds and then renews the fight another day? If the South had won they’ve have ‘’crossed the Rubicon’’. They would have had to take stock of where they were and realize, like it or not, there would have been bigger things at stake then just establishing a small confederation of states.