Recently got a temp ban from KiA2 for very mildly acknowledging this fact. Just testing the waters here.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
We've went wrong a lot, but I think 1861 was the biggest in the American timeline. Secession from a government that doesn't represent their interests should be a right among a free people, and it was really the end of the 1776 experiment.
As to the "religious peoples" bit, within context, that seemed much more directed at the restraint of human nature, as you say, rather than any organized religion.
While you're correct that "religious people" are often at loggerheads, that's really more an issue of unreasoned passion, than what seems to be referred to here.
If any minority that loses an election is free to throw a tantrum and secede from the central government, you simply cannot have a free government. Because in 1865, the states from the losing side would secede, and there would just be an infinite fragmentation. Even in very homogeneous countries, you do not have full agreement on everything.
Not necessarily. E.g. Catholics and Muslims in France. Or do you mean that the degeneracy here talked about is unreasoned passion -that seems to be closer to the mark.
But the fragmentation would create new priorities where ideological alignment would form. There is benefit to numbers in union, but the sovereign cost should be routinely weighed and measured.
Yes, this.
Sure, but the point is, if you can just leave - there is no point in allowing yourself to be ruled by people with whom you disagree. And there is not really a logical stopping point there. If it's in terms of costs and benefits, it's unquestionably better for the South to have been part of the US than to be its own independent nation.
Only because of the Union Navy's ability to blockade cotton exports. That was the most compelling reason. The coercion of force.