In the US Civil War, holding the Union together was a much more popular cause in the North than abolitionism. I've thought about that and asked about that, and here are two possibilities:
The South's unilateral secession was a recipe for anarchy. What was the point of having a Union when states could freely disregard decisions made by the national government? Unilateral it was, with Southern politicians not bothering to make a case in Congress for their secession.
If they were willing to convince Northern politicians that a split would be good for both the North and the South, then they might have successfully seceded. Something like the "velvet divorce", the Dissolution of CzechoslovakiaWP. They would have had to negotiate division of assets, as Czech and Slovak politicians did, but if both sides agreed on doing that, then it would not have been much trouble.
Secession could have gone even further. Some politicians in mid-Atlantic states proposed forming a Central ConfederacyWP, and Mayor Fernando WoodWP of New York City proposed that his city become the Free City of Tri-Insula, the "three islands" being Staten Island, Manhattan, and Long Island.
International weakness. That was a potentially serious problem. Beginning half a millennium ago, European nations conquered more and more of the rest of the world. Spain and Portugal were the first, followed by Britain and France and various others. The US itself had originated from some British colonies, successfully rebelling against their parent nation. However, Britain held on to Canada. The US and Britain fought each other again in the War of 1812, with the US being unsuccessful in "liberating" Canada and Britain burning down the White House. The US and Britain were then at loggerheads over the western US-Canada boundary, with some Americans demanding "54-40 or fight!" But they settled for a more southerly latitude.
Spain and Portugal were the first big colonial powers, but by 1860, they were in decline. Nearly all their Central and South American territories had become independent some 40 years before, though they still held on to territories elsewhere. France, another big colonial power, had lost in the Americas, though that nation had some territory in Africa. Britain was still going strong, acquiring territory as if it had never lost its North American colonies. Russia had expanded eastward across Eurasia, crossing over into North America and expanding along the Pacific coast.
Britain was at the time the biggest international power, with a world-spanning set of colonial territories and a navy to match.
So a hostile split could greatly weaken the resulting nations, making them vulnerable to British meddling. As it was, the North had to convince Britain to refuse to recognize the South, because Britain supporting the South would have been catastrophic for the North.
The South's unilateral secession was a recipe for anarchy. What was the point of having a Union when states could freely disregard decisions made by the national government? Unilateral it was, with Southern politicians not bothering to make a case in Congress for their secession.
If they were willing to convince Northern politicians that a split would be good for both the North and the South, then they might have successfully seceded. Something like the "velvet divorce", the Dissolution of CzechoslovakiaWP. They would have had to negotiate division of assets, as Czech and Slovak politicians did, but if both sides agreed on doing that, then it would not have been much trouble.
Secession could have gone even further. Some politicians in mid-Atlantic states proposed forming a Central ConfederacyWP, and Mayor Fernando WoodWP of New York City proposed that his city become the Free City of Tri-Insula, the "three islands" being Staten Island, Manhattan, and Long Island.
International weakness. That was a potentially serious problem. Beginning half a millennium ago, European nations conquered more and more of the rest of the world. Spain and Portugal were the first, followed by Britain and France and various others. The US itself had originated from some British colonies, successfully rebelling against their parent nation. However, Britain held on to Canada. The US and Britain fought each other again in the War of 1812, with the US being unsuccessful in "liberating" Canada and Britain burning down the White House. The US and Britain were then at loggerheads over the western US-Canada boundary, with some Americans demanding "54-40 or fight!" But they settled for a more southerly latitude.
Spain and Portugal were the first big colonial powers, but by 1860, they were in decline. Nearly all their Central and South American territories had become independent some 40 years before, though they still held on to territories elsewhere. France, another big colonial power, had lost in the Americas, though that nation had some territory in Africa. Britain was still going strong, acquiring territory as if it had never lost its North American colonies. Russia had expanded eastward across Eurasia, crossing over into North America and expanding along the Pacific coast.
Britain was at the time the biggest international power, with a world-spanning set of colonial territories and a navy to match.
So a hostile split could greatly weaken the resulting nations, making them vulnerable to British meddling. As it was, the North had to convince Britain to refuse to recognize the South, because Britain supporting the South would have been catastrophic for the North.
