The Civil War

[thir]

I disagree. As harsh as it was to force them to rejoin the Union, anything else could have resulted in a highly fragmented country, with individual states breaking away anytime some state legislature decided it didn't like what was happening in Washington. You then wind up with another Europe, many small nation-states constantly at war with one another.

Well, first I simply believe that you should not force areas together against what the people want. People have a right to choose for themselves.

Secondly, I really do not think that you can compare Europe and USA that way. The European countries were created over a long, long time and ended up really different, while USA was colonized by white people over a relatively short time.

What that would mean in the long run is anybody's guess, but surely the history would be markedly different from that of Europe.

[Thorne]

Well, first I simply believe that you should not force areas together against what the people want. People have a right to choose for themselves.

To a point, but if you are a lawful nation, don't you (as the government) have the right to maintain the boundaries of that nation? For the good of all the people, of course. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave, generally.

Secondly, I really do not think that you can compare Europe and USA that way. The European countries were created over a long, long time and ended up really different, while USA was colonized by white people over a relatively short time.

Yes, but most of the Americans, especially during the times running up to the civil war, were transplanted Europeans who brought many of the cultural, and political, biases over with them.

This is not always the case, as is shown with whites and indians in the early days.
But the killing is the same.

Whites and Indians were not competing on a relatively equal technological level, nor on an equal racial level. In Europe it was difficult to distinguish between natives of different countries simply by their appearances, especially in border areas. And generally all of the European nations were at comparable levels of technology.

The point that I see here is that you should not force people to become a country if they do not want to.

The problem isn't that they were forced to become a country, but that once that central government collapsed each tiny region reverted to centuries old hatreds and prejudices. And with few exceptions the individual nations which returned were far worse off than when they had been "united" under a central government.

[thir]

To a point, but if you are a lawful nation, don't you (as the government) have the right to maintain the boundaries of that nation? For the good of all the people, of course. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave, generally.

The bounderies of a nation is not always to the good of all the people, as is shown many places around the world even today.
In historical terms, some powers would overpower other nations, and make it their law that they should accept it, like it or not.

So the question is: whose law?

Is law more important than freedom?

Yes, but most of the Americans, especially during the times running up to the civil war, were transplanted Europeans who brought many of the cultural, and political, biases over with them.

True, but even so, the situation was different. They came to the country over a short time and had to start over all together in a new place - largely at the same time.

Whites and Indians were not competing on a relatively equal technological level, nor on an equal racial level. In Europe it was difficult to distinguish between natives of different countries simply by their appearances, especially in border areas. And generally all of the European nations were at comparable levels of technology.

I am not sure of your point here?

The problem isn't that they were forced to become a country, but that once that central government collapsed each tiny region reverted to centuries old hatreds and prejudices. And with few exceptions the individual nations which returned were far worse off than when they had been "united" under a central government.

You think? There were no problems under a united government, just as US citizens are just one big, happy family?

Anyway, you have to go further back. There were functioning nations or areas which were cut to pieces and divided and made into new nations as it suited other powers, expecially after WW1. And it did not work! Obviously the lid comes off when the overall structure collapses, as with the previous Sovjet Union.