Another consistent take is simply that international borders should mostly stay as they currently are, particularly in cases where the de jure status matches th

Another consistent take is simply that international borders should mostly stay as they currently are, particularly in cases where the de jure status matches the de facto. This stance has the benefit that it condemns almost all wars of territorial conquest, including those which have some kind of twisted historical justification. Similarly, this stance implies that regions within sovereign nations do not have the unilateral right to declare independence, as doing so would change the current international borders. (This often leads to war when existing states are unwilling to cede territory). >> Somebody’s going to ask “but what about the Confederacy?” The position that most tempts me is “The Confederacy had every right to secede, because every region that wants to secede has that right - but immediately upon granting them independence, the Union should have invaded in order to stop the atrocity of slavery”. I won't make any claims about what the US "should" have done in the 1860's when the Confederacy declared independence, but I will note a few key points. Firstly, Confederate troops opened fire on US military positions, commencing the outbreak of hostilities. Secondly, the United States had by that point a storied history of seizing the lands of its neighbors for expansion (in accordance with the idea of manifest destiny). See, for example, the Mexican-American war. It is, then, hardly any surprise that the US chose to use its larger military, population, and industry to conquer a smaller neighbor that had limited transportation infrastructure and almost no foreign allies.