Replies

What the critics of Lincoln are saying is that they wish the South had the same right to self-determination that our government has long proclaimed to other parts of the world.

Which woud have resulted in no USA. So they wish there was no USA, or they refuse to acknolwedge what the consequenses of what they wish for would be.

I am not aware of anyone who thinks that the south would ever have volutarily rejoined the northern States in political union, especially after the brutal treatment the north inflicted on non-combatants in the south.

I have had that argument used on me by neo-Confederate Lincoln haters on this forum when I argued that the result of succession would be no USA. They say if Lincoln would have accepted succession, the South would have abolished slavery on their own, and rejoined the Union, so the Civil War was unnecessary. Of couse the fact that the South started the war belies the argument.

Any drastic change in history such as the South winning its independence would have greatly altered course of history throughout the world. We don't know the details of what those changes might be, but it is rash to assume that communism and national socialism would automatically have arisen in any event.

You are right, we don't know what exactly would have happened. But I cannot believe that the world would be a better place without the USA. Do you believe it would?

Which woud have resulted in no USA. So they wish there was no USA, or they refuse to acknolwedge what the consequenses of what they wish for would be.

There would have still been a U.S.A., but it would have been of smaller land area, encompassing the northern States but not the South. And I have never heard anyone deny that such would have been the consequences.