3 ms·

I don't know, The US fought a nasty war over this exact issue(are member states allowed to leave the union?). With the general conclusion(remember that history

by somat 4y ago

I don't know, The US fought a nasty war over this exact issue(are member states allowed to leave the union?). With the general conclusion(remember that history is written by the winners) that this was the right thing to do.

marcusverus 4y ago
That conclusion is entirely based on the idea of the war as a crusade against slavery. Nobody (nowadays) would celebrate a million-casualty war if waged merely for the preservation of a polity.
pasabagi 4y ago
If you ask a mainstream historian, they will tell you, likely with a very irritated mein, that the US civil war was about slavery, not independence. Secession was just the means to protect slavery. The idea that it was about states' rights is essentially a post-war attempt to whitewash a morally repugnant cause.
- somat 4y ago
  If there was no secession there would not have been a war, yes, slavery was the irreconcilable problem. but it was the rebellion against the state that led to armies marching. why did the north not just let the south go? why was it worth roughly a million lives to keep them in the union? on this point I bet that if the north knew how nasty the war would get they would have said let them go, but by the time they saw how big the conflict was they were stuck with it. I think the lesson is that nations can be jealous hording creatures at times. Honestly, I am bit surprised there was no war over brexit.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    I think it would have been impossible for the Republican party, founded to oppose slavery, to allow states to secede so they could continue to practice slavery on independent soil. People absolutely were willing to die over this: that's the whole point about bleeding Kansas. In general, more people have died in wars have been fought over much less, either morally or materially.

3 ms·

I don't know, The US fought a nasty war over this exact issue(are member states allowed to leave the union?). With the general conclusion(remember that history

by somat 4y ago

marcusverus 4y ago
That conclusion is entirely based on the idea of the war as a crusade against slavery. Nobody (nowadays) would celebrate a million-casualty war if waged merely for the preservation of a polity.
pasabagi 4y ago
If you ask a mainstream historian, they will tell you, likely with a very irritated mein, that the US civil war was about slavery, not independence. Secession was just the means to protect slavery. The idea that it was about states' rights is essentially a post-war attempt to whitewash a morally repugnant cause.
- somat 4y ago
  If there was no secession there would not have been a war, yes, slavery was the irreconcilable problem. but it was the rebellion against the state that led to armies marching. why did the north not just let the south go? why was it worth roughly a million lives to keep them in the union? on this point I bet that if the north knew how nasty the war would get they would have said let them go, but by the time they saw how big the conflict was they were stuck with it. I think the lesson is that nations can be jealous hording creatures at times. Honestly, I am bit surprised there was no war over brexit.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    I think it would have been impossible for the Republican party, founded to oppose slavery, to allow states to secede so they could continue to practice slavery on independent soil. People absolutely were willing to die over this: that's the whole point about bleeding Kansas. In general, more people have died in wars have been fought over much less, either morally or materially.