1) Slavery would've been rendered economically obsolete eventually by industrialization, like what happened in the Northeastern and Midwestern states between the 1780s and 1850s, like Roger Sherman predicted. Sure. I'll give you that one. Letting it linger on would've created a litany of other issues though:
*The South in reality experienced its own phase of industrialization between the 1890s and the 1920s as the agricultural market crapped the bed and northern companies wanted cheaper, less unionized labor. What's that timetable look like with slavery still intact? What happens when boll weevils eat the Southern economy into shreds with slavery intact, until, say 1892? How's that cute paternalism between massa and his chattels going to work out? Or are the plantation owners going to starve the slaves or sell them cheap to recoup losses?
*The whole "slavery is morally disgusting" aspect
*The US would've become an international pariah like Rhodesia and pre-1994 South Africa because European empires ended slavery (and serfdom) before the US and colonized Africa "to end the Arabic slave trade" (aka use abolition of slavery to appease liberals into supporting colonialism). This international isolation became apparent during the war itself when basically no one wanted to deal with the South after Antietam in the international realm
2) Even if the South seceded and everything was hunky-dory between the USA and the CSA, with no shots fired, having two independent North American anglophone countries would've seriously complicated and maybe bloodied American history. There's all sorts of alt-history literature out there exploring the different possibilities. Reality was this though: the South's main export market was the UK. The South would've had to explore its own international relations. The South would've had markedly different interests than the North. Different interests lead to disputes and disputes lead to conflicts. There's no imaginable way that the two countries could have peacefully co-existed between 1861 and now as independent states.
3) The South started the Civil War by stealing from Federal arsenals and attacking US troops when each state seceded. I guess you don't believe in self-defense.
4) I'm proud that the Union won the Civil War, just like I'm proud of the US winning against the British in the Revolution, the Germans in WW1 and WW2, etc. It's ok to be proud of having beaten your adversaries. That's called "self-respect." I don't know if this isn't obvious to you, but this isn't the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" gun forum. If you want to reminisce with a bunch of losers, go join a Southern gun forum. We won, they lost, and that gives me pride.
I'm going to make this crystal God-damned clear for you: if you truly support the Constitution, equality for all, and civil liberties for all, including the RKBA and self-defense, then you're a hypocrite if you also support Jim Crow, the CSA, and not allowing equal access to arms to "the blacks" and others.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Ok kid. You didn't win.
And I'll make this crystal clear for you.
You sound like some Antifa infiltrator. It's not just this thread that gives me reason to think this way.
When you can think for yourself instead of repeating talking points then I'd be happy to have an intelligent discussion with you.
Bye!
