No other New World nation had a federal system that gave rise to a conflict between state and national sovereignty.
The successful formation of the CSA would have led to further fracturing of both sides, then the Europeans picking over the pieces until only remnants were left, with mass death into the 1900s. The stance taken by Lincoln was morally as well as politically courageous precisely because the legalities were doubtful, but the stakes could not be higher.
ICXC NIKA
You speculate that the successful formation of the CSA would have led to further fracturing of both sides. It may have, and again, it may not have, both sides understanding the peril they might face if further fracturing occurred. Both sides, once independent of each other could still join together as allies against foreign intruders. Anyway, apparently the CSA was willing to take that risk, and I should think they had every right to do so. You talk about mass death into the 1900s; what do you think the “Civil War” was, but mass death, brother killing brother, father and son killing each other-- the most hideous form of mass death.
You may call what Lincoln did moral, but you have not proven to me that it was in any way a just war. Today we would call it genocide, a government killing its own people. It cannot be said to be a war of self defense-- instead it was a war of self destruction.
Foolishness and courage are often wrongly defined by the outcome. The Union succeeded but at cost of inflicting death and injury to tens of thousands of its former fellow countrymen who only wanted to live peacefully side by side. The doubtful legalities were all the more reason to refrain from mortal combat.
This was a black period in American history and left an indelible scar on our nation. Slavery was not its victory, for slavery would have been abolished here like it was in every other nation by peaceful means. Slavery was wrong, but it was not a matter of life and death. It did not suddenly burst upon the scene. It was dragged there over centuries of practice by the majority of nations.
The Union’s victory was a stronger state wielding its power over a weaker state. Power determined the outcome, nothing more. If the CSA had won, we would now be praising the right of free people to choose their own destiny, in much the same way that we celebrate the Revolutionary War.
You can spin any war into a moral issue, but that does not make it so. Did you notice how on the first day of the Iraq invasion that our government began cranking out the propaganda that it was a war of liberation? That prospect had never entered into the discussion prior to the invasion. That factor would have never won the day as a reason sufficient to launch a war against a sovereign nation that presented no imminent threat to the US.
Today we find the same tensions building. More and more states are crafting sovereignty clauses in their Constitutions in the wake of Federal government stealing more and more power that was reserved to the states by the Constitution. If there were ever a showdown, it could be another bloody disgrace, and for what? For the Federal government to flex its muscle and oppress the states under the guise of common good? If there ever were a war, I would hope that our soldiers would refuse to fire on its own citizens. Such wars are never morally justifiable IMO. Our country has become inebriated with its own power. If it does not humble itself, I’m certain that there is a principle at work in the universe that inexorably finds a way to level every mountain and every hill. We cannot love and kill out citizenry in the same breath. [Stepping off soap box]
Maryland should be quite glad Lee disagreed with you.
If feel like we were taught different things in school. You ask a Southerner if the war was about slavery and we will say no. You ask a Yankee, and he will say yes. 