I’m one of the few people north of the Mason-Dixon line who says we should have let the South secede

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/

Shouldn’t be one country. Too big. Too diverse.

Would have been better off letting the South secede in 1860.

You’d have to listen to the full argument. Just some points . . .

* Instead of four generations of the horrors of Jim Crow you would have had two inertial generations and then young Southerners would have demanded that their elders end slavery. That trend was in place worldwide.

* By forcing Radical Reconstruction down their throats the result was a degree of alienation that just made everything worse. The north dominated the south. Domination always involves oppression, resentment, etc. etc.

* The emancipation of 1862 was done for the sake of northern industrialists who were clamoring for cheap wage laborers.

* The South had all the elements of a natural sovereign state. Aside from those northern industrialists, the vast majority of white people on the whole continent would have been better off if the South had been allowed to secede. And after extensive study of the situation, I personally have come to the conclusion that the plight facing Black people would have improved sooner and more. I think the South would have freed the slaves by 1900. And if they had done it through their own volition there would not have been lynchings etc. etc. continuing into the 1950s. And if that volition included a significant dimension of self-determination on the part of Blacks (which I think it would have) then the resulting esteem, dignity, respect, and self-respect would have been beneficial for all.