Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?

[cloudship 7]

Most of you are going to think I am nuts, many will think I am some kind of revolutionary nutcase, a few will find it controversial but...

Back in 1861, did the US make a fundamental mistake in fighting the separation of the North and the South? Now, the Civil War was in many ways really about slavery, and I am in no way questioning that result (thus the right thing). But looking beyond that fact, have we done the the wrong thing in keeping to groups (in this case parts of the country) together even though they have such differing views and ideals just for the sake of being one country?

Politics have become so overwhelming that political positions are taken based not upon the pros and cons of each issue but upon party lines. States and opinions are drifting further and further apart, and are becoming more and more diametrically opposed. There seems to be two widely differing beliefs - one based on the ideals of a way of life and one based on a concept of individual freedom.

Should we have not strived to hold everyone together? Should we not, in the interests of freedom to choose, have let the two groups go their own ways and do what they feel is right for themselves?

[Gard 1]

I think it was worth it. What we are experiencing now is a bit different than what happened then, as the disagreements were more on a state-by-state level, as opposed to now, where it is quite spread. There isn't a state that I'm aware of where there is a general consensus about whether we are headed in the right direction or not. Most states as well have a good mix of Democrats and Republicans in office. We may be divided on multiple things, but I haven't seen any anti-American sediment as of yet and there seems to still be a strong sense of love from both sides for the country itself. That being said, I think it was worth keeping together .

[Charlotteman 13]

Wow these are some of the same questions I've been asking for years. First things first, slavery was not the overriding cause of the American Civil War. It became an important aspect after the war began. But the Civil War essentially started because S.C., then the rest of the South seceeded. The war was Abe's last straw attempt at holding the country together. At all costs.

We all agree that slavery was horrible, and the South should have never had the Peculiar Institution. But the reality is that Abe initially began the war to keep the country together, not to free the slaves.

When the South split away, a civil war ensued in which 620,000 soldiers died. An untold number of civilians were injured or killed on both sides. Large swaths of the South were literally pulverized into the ground. The entire region was economically crippled, and the Southern people lost almost everything.

Then an occupation lasting years encumbered the South, and many Whites lost hope in the future. It took decades for the region to recover, both economically and in the confidence of the people.

The war and lengthy occupation cost billions and billions and billions of dollars.

Americans today generally ignore all those facts, and assume the Civil War was simply a highly patriotic event, all about slavery, a no-brainer........ and that Abe did the right things. I imagine a huge percent of Americans today are glad the war was fought etc. But would people today accept those kinds of losses in order to keep a country together?

Abe apparently was prepared to absolutely annihilate the South in order to keep the USA together. In today's world, might he be considered a militaristic maniac? In recent times, didn't the world consider Slobodan Milosevic a blood thirsty, nationalistic zealot for his barbaric attempts to hold Yugoslavia together?

Questions I've been pondering for years-----did Abe do the right thing(s)? We're all glad the slaves were freed, and that slavery was ended. But I'm still not sure if all those deaths and destruction were worth keeping a country together.