Hi Dennis. How're things for you these days?

Seems there are folks on this board who are answering your question with the assumption that, had the WBTS not occurred (with the North winning as well), I'd now be living in the CSA down here in Texas. I took your question as a fairly open one and am assuming differently than that.

I can't think of a single thing that would not have been better in today's world if the differences between North and South had been settled without the WBTS and subsequent so-called "reconstruction". Please note, when I said the differences were settled, I was implying that the South and North either remained united or were re-united ... in either case, without war.

Among so many other things that were lost, think of the possible bright, innovative, constructive minds (on both sides of that conflict) who never realized their potential because they died too young to see their possibilities fulfilled. A country can't lose that many in a generation without consequences, even though the consequences aren't knowable or quantifiable by their descendants.

There had to be better ways to achieve a continued United States ... too bad they weren't pursued.

Now, be sure you don't misunderstand me ... there are folks here likely to do so. I love the U.S.A. for all the good things it is, for all the better things it could be, and in spite of having warts which I acknowledge it to have. But, the WBTS was not one of the good things. North's fault, South's fault, everybody's fault ... it was a bad thing to happen. If the differences could have been settled without war (and this hypothesis is assuming that, whether realistic or not), then yes .. the U.S.A. today would be better than it is.

Respectfully,
Penny