Slavery had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War?
Was Diogenes really this crazy when he started posting?
The posts get longer and more radical and more far-fetched.
And even a thread about Chappaquiddick gets turned into an excuse for Civil War rant.
My sense is that Diogenes gets deeper into fantasy every year (Can it have been years?).
Or maybe he's living in some bizarre computer simulation and doesn't know he's in the matrix.
Lincoln's state of Illinois was a state that made it illegal for blacks to become residents.
And yet free African-Americans lived in Illinois. As they lived in Southern states that also had laws on the books outlawing them.
The notion that the North was full of the milk of human kindness towards blacks is completely incorrect. They hated them and wanted them out of the country.
Diogenes creates a straw man argument that hardly anybody actually believes, and then knocks it down to replace it with another straw man argument that is no more accurate. Most Northerners didn't want to live with African-Americans, but to say that they hated them and wanted them out is an exaggeration and a distortion.
The South would have acquired a lot of territories that became states, and eventually the Southern nation would have looked something like this. (But perhaps without Ohio and Indiana.)
By that sort of twisted logic, Britain and France, having fought two wars against Germany would have become one country because they shared a common enemy. Or being weaker economically, they would have been given up their independence to become part of the economically more powerful Germany.
Really, the differences between Idaho and South Carolina, or North Dakota and Mississippi would have prevented those states from joining together against the rest of the country. Rural Washingtonians and Idahoans or Minnesotans and Dakotans have more in common with each other than either had with Mississippians or Alabamans.
The "culture wars" of the late 20th and early 21st century hadn't started yet, and people in Bismarck and Minneapolis or Boise and Seattle didn't think of themselves as living in utterly different worlds. The few who did, wouldn't find they had much in common with people thousands of miles away either, and if the South did become the continent's economic powerhouse, the malcontents would hate it as much as they hated (or as much as Diogenes hates) New York City.
The thing about secession -- 150 years ago or now -- is that if the country breaks up, it would be into more than two irregularly shaped pieces. The East and West Coast wouldn't stay together if the US broke up today. And if the union was dissolved tomorrow, there would be no reason for the plains and mountain states to remain in the same country as the Deep South. Nor would that have happened if the country split up 150 years ago.
Lenin was transported to Russia *after* the US announced it would go to war against Germany. No Lenin, no communist takeover of the Russian revolution.
Kerensky was weak. He wanted to continue fighting a war that Russia couldn't win. He would have been overthrown. There was plenty of opportunity for someone like Lenin, or Lenin himself to take over.
And why do you think it so essential for America to enter the war for Germany to let Lenin pass through to Russia? Germany's rulers would have done that in any case, whether the US was in the war or not, since it was to their advantage to cause chaos in Russia and take that country out of the war. Britain and France were still in the war, and the great Spring Offensive that the Germans hoped would win the war was still months away. Bolshevik Revolution in Russia could have helped Germany win the war.
No Hitler. No Holocaust.
After WWI, the history of the 20th century was bound to be bloody and destructive. I don't think anybody can say what would actually have happened if Germany had won, except to say that just exactly what happened in our timeline would not have happened as it did.
Answer why Lincoln was going to further enshrine slavery in constitutional law.
It's a hard argument to claim that what you assert was the cause of the war was going to be much more greatly protected by the man who actually launched the war.
This is a dichotomy that contradicts your claim. If slavery was the cause, then why did Lincoln and all the Northern states offer to protect it further? How do you square that circle?
Pretty much, although he has been polishing his act