[WS:] I am not sure about that. Abolition of slavery (a good thing) was an indisputable outcome of the Civil War, but another outcome was that the Southern social relations and politics (a bad thing) spilled over and eventually dominated the whole Union.
So I guess the right question to ask is that of an "alternative history" i.e. what would have happened had the South been allowed to secede? Would the slavery be abolished, and if so when and in what circumstances? Would the North follow a different trajectory, and if so how different (along the lines of Canada, the UK or perhaps other European states?)
Obviously, it is impossible to give empirically supported answers to these questions, but that is what makes this 'alternative history" approach intellectually interesting. One set of possible answers (yes to both questions) would indicate that the Civil War was not such a good thing as it might appear by looking at its outcomes alone.
Wojtek
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>wrote:
> Looks like he also forgot something else:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > when ultimately overwhelmed by the insurmountable numbers and resources
> of
> > the Union Army, . . .
> >
>
> . . . and not by the justice of their cause, in case anyone wondered about
> that . . . .
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>