Wobbly Guy @67; Nahnbcee@70:

While a federal (as compared to unitary) system of governance may be had without allowing for the right of secession, a federal union cannot. Something the Founding Fathers managed to overlook. Their omission virtually guaranteed that there would be civil war sooner or later. Ain’t 20-20 hindsight wunnerful?

After all, secession simply means “I do not care to continue my association with you and shall take my leave.” It is a natural right of all human beings. In the geo-political world it cannot be had as readily as a Nevada divorce, formal methods have to be laid out in plain language. Regrettably, this was not done in Philadelphia back when.

BTW: In the case of Texas, there was a blatant illegality. When joining the Union in 1845, The Republic of Texas has agreed
to never join with any other entity. Therefore, seceding to join the Confederacy
was a no-no.

Solution would have been for Texas to secede from the secession. To say “hands off” to both sides and once again become its own Republic. As a practical matter, there was nothing either Abe Lincoln or Jefferson Davis could have done about it.

That was what Sam Houston tried his best to accomplish and nobody paid him a lick of attention. When Big Sam gets ignored in Texas, it is certain that The Devil Is Afoot.

The Knights of the Golden Circle were a genuine conspiracy that manipulated opinions and inflamed passions in both North and South. IMO there has not been enough done in researching their orgins, financing, etc. Any resemblance between the KGC and the Soros web might, or might not, be coincidental.

On the logistical front: In the 1850s, the Protective Tariff did result in largish revenues. That is because the South had to spend its cotton money that way or do without
material goods. The money thus collected was therefore paid by Southerners but spent on Northerners as they had the larger voting bloc on the Appropriations Committee.

This resulted in transferring income from the area(s) with the lower per capita incomes
to those with the higher per capita incomes.
Whenever this practice becomes commonplace,
the resultant hubris among recipients and
resentments among “donors” provides more than enough oily tender for spontaneous combustion. Add a few instigators and the
defecation is sure to encounter the oscillation.

That is what happened in 1860-61. Men had to react as best they could. Actual Austrians such as Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard,
and (hopefully) Yours Truly try to take such considerations into their conclusions. A bunch of *soi disant* Austrians latch on to con artists like DiLorenzo because he makes them feel comfortable aping Keynesians and Marxists alike. IMHO, of course.

On the military front: Why do you think Robert E. Lee was so anxious to break through the center of Mead’s lines at Gettysburg? Answer: Stonewall Jackson had persuaded him (correctly) that there was but one way to get the damnyankees to cooperate.
Do unto Pennsylvania (New York? Massachusetts?) as Sherman did unto Georgia.

Fortunately, Marse Robert was unable to do so. Yes, it would have worked (Good News!)
but the later consequences wouled have probably destroyed North and South alike.
That is because after Sherman, the South was unable to continue, knew it, and bowed to the inevitable. The North would have had
plenty of means to continue but would have
been unwilling to use them and not known how either. Thus, the North would have felt betrayed and sold out for generations to come. More war would have been inevitable.
Turtledove’s scenario of World War I taking place on these shores as well as in Europe
strikes me as a probability.

And then who is there to stop the totalitarians? Methinks we did dodge many a Minie ball after all. TBTG.