I love the way Shuster says that Lincoln went to war to "save the Union." That's just feel-good language for trampling states' rights in favor of more powerful federal government. It just sounds a lot better to say "save the union." Are we better off today than we would have been if the war hadn't taken place? There's no way to be sure, since we can't compare theorectical alternative histories, but here are some interesting questions:
If the southern states were allowed to secede from the union, isn't it possible that they could have reunited later under diplomatic circumstances?
Would two separate unions in place of the one we have now have been worse than what we have now?
How many of the 600,000 that died might have gone on to create new innovations, save lives, cure diseases, etc.?
With an extra 600,000 people and lots of diverted funds, might have the industrial revolution occurred sooner?
Would race relations have been better in the long term if slavery had ended with a buyout rather than a war?
Of course, there's no real answer to any of these. It's just a reminder not to assume that actual historical result is the best of all possibilities. History books used in public schools are designed to make us feel good about our history, not to point out all of our faults. Free thinkers seek out all sides of a story before accepting any one version as fact. That's where the old media fails.
