So by your logic bullying weaker opponents to get what you want is a more admirable trait than fighting a foe on equal ground to prevent your own home from being torn to pieces? Brilliant.
We've had presidents who refused to bully other nations, the last being Carter, they have all had many problems because of it. From a pragmatic standpoint bullying should only be done when it has a realistic chance of working. TR managed to consistently do that, Lincoln opted to "bully" an opponent who most anyone at the time knew would not be cowed.
You mentioned nationalism. How about that? Or how about the common "their grass is greener. Let's take it" syndrome?
Nationalism in that period was tied to uniting people of a common culture and heritage under one nation. The best examples of it would be German nationalism, Italian nationalism, and Slavic nationalism. The idea was that the Danes should not rule Germans (as a war was fought to prevent in Holstein) or that the Slavs should not be ruled by a German ruler (as a large independence/terrorist movement fought for). The 19th century notion of nationalism would have no effect between the CSA and Union. There were no repressed national minorities (aside from the Irish, blacks, natives, etc.) that the common folk and rulers of one country would fight to "liberate".
As far as taking their grass. Please. The US turned annexing the whole of Mexico. The US turned down
voluntary annexation of the Dominican Republic only shortly after this. Frankly the US has very rarely gone to war for territorial agrandization and never has managed to do so against a well armed and organized foe. Frankly why would the Union and the CSA be more likely to fight wars of territorial aggrandization than the USA was with Canada?
Or how about raw materials?
Both sides are among the most well endowed territories in the world. Exactly which raw materials would they not both have in sufficient quanity? Exactly which raw materials could they not readily acquire through trade?
Or how about raw materials? Even assuming that allowing the split would have held the Union and Confederate states in their respective nations (which is a stupid assumption, but posed simply as a hypothetical), do you honestly think the Confederates would have been content with just slaves and cotton?
No, dumbass, because the CSA never was just slaves and cotton. There was extensive animal husbandry throughout the south, mineral deposits abounded, and plenty of territory which could be industrialized. Frankly the reason they had slaves and cotton was not because they lacked other options, but because it made them
friggen rich, sufficiently wealthy that they could import most anything cheaper than it could be made domesticly.
I don't know, perhaps the same territorial ambitions as the USA? You just made the argument that the two had the same culture.
The answer is more or less none. The vast unihabited spaces of the federal territories won from Mexico, and possibly Oklahoma would be it. The North didn't give a damn about these areas, Oklahoma was a dumping ground for natives and the former Mexican territories were close to inhospitable. The reason they tried to ban slavery in these territories was to prevent the southerners from maintaining anything close to parity in the senate, not because they really wanted arid land filled with Catholic Mexicans.
When Tennessee voted for secession, half the counties tried to secede and rejoin the Union.
Yes I know. You could make just as good a point looking at the West Virginia/Virginia split. However I didn't say the CSA was resting their claim on popular sovreignty or the rights of counties, I said they rested it upon the sovreignty of
States. If the
State of Tennesse duly voted to join the CSA, then the territory was part of the CSA until the elected officials in Tennessee decided otherwise.
They willingly cast their lot with the states you admitted fought because they wanted a spread of slavery.
Yes and a good number of abolitionists sided with them, the most prominent being General Lee. This was a period in time when citizen's loyalty was to their state, by and large, and not to the federal government. At the very least Lincoln's lack of diplomacy to the upper south (as well as Maryland and Missouri) is a slight black mark against.
As for territorial disputes, how about when it comes time to decide who gets Oklahoma? Or Nebraska? Or Colorado? Or Wyoming? Or Utah? Or Nevada? Minor border disputes have a history of flaring up into full-scale wars.
Yeah like fifty-four forty or fight? Or the border dispute in the Aroostook valley? Or the Alaskan border dispute? The fate of the San Juan Archipeligo?
Frankly there is no history of American border disputes flaring up into full-scale wars.
In any event:
Oklahoma goes to whomever wants it, being a net drag on whichever country is stuck with it (Oklahoma was were the US dumped natives which allegedly had treaty rights - niether population really wanted it).
Nebraska would most likely go union. The terrain is unsuitable for a slave economy and attracted mostly nothern and immigrant homesteaders.
Colorado would have gone Union. The population had only to go through procedural issues and would have voted to stay Northern.
Wyoming. Is again unsuitable for a slave economy, was predominately settled by northerners, and had no viabl economic connection to the CSA. It would most likely go North.
Utah is mormon country. The LDS were extremely pro-union and applied for statehood in the middle of the war.
Nevada would most likely go union as well, while there was a small pro-CSA group, the vast majority of the people were Northernors, and the territorial government reflected that.
Or how about California? It remained with the Union during the war, but it was isolated enough that it could have cleanly split had the South been allowed to go. Then we'd be faced with the prospect of a hypothetical three-sided Civil War.
Don't kid yourself. California was quite pro-union. The population was immigrant and its major contacts were via the overland passes through Utah and by ship via Panama and the Cape. California officially supplied 15,725 volunteers, some of which saw fighting in the east. Californian sucession is DELUSIONAL.
You mean like FIGHTING TO KEEP THE COUNTRY YOU WERE PUT IN CHARGE OF FROM SPLINTERING FASTER THAN A BRANCH THROWN IN A WOOD CHIPPER?
Yep. Lincoln was good president. He made slight errors, such as having trouble picking a good commander for the Army of the Potomic, not finessing the Upper South a bit better, etc. All of his errors pale in comparison to his achievements, however they do create a contrast.
On a similar note, World War II also could have been avoided but countries like England, France, Russia, and the U.S. decided that sustaining millions of casualties was far preferable to letting Hitler remain in power. I doubt you have any objections to their decision to pursue that war.
My main objections lies not with Lincoln bitchslapping South Carolina, but the way in which he pursued it, alienating the upper south and making the war longer and bloodier. I wanted to point out that Lincoln does not get a free pass on the great amount of carnage caused during the civil war. There were other options, other tactics, and Lincoln should have publicly looked them all over.
Oh, except for the fact that the U.S. was able to stand as one entity in future conflicts.
This is relevent why? The Spanish American war would have been just as lopsided. WWI would have seen the CSA side with the entente or be neutral and the eventual entry of the USA would still have doomed the central powers. In WWII the Union would have more than enough firepower to curbstomp the Axis. In the cold war, do you really think that either the Union or the CSA would hate each other more than the godless commies?
At the end of the day Lincoln had a lousy hand. He managed to survive. That is sufficient to make a him a good president, is it enough to make him the best? Do we know if another good president could have pulled that off? Most certainly Washington was able to deal with such things and a good case could be made for FDR. Exactly how much of the bloodbath is attributable to Lincoln (for instance being slow in sacking certain commanders when it was obvious they needed to go) and exactly how much of the benifit is attributable to Lincoln is not determinable. Given an abscence of evidence I rule on the side of caution.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
Loss of political power in a representative system is no excuse. If you insist on leaving slavery out of it, then the South was executing a rule or ruin policy, and when conditions became such that they could not rule, they set out like spoiled children to ruin.
