[SiempreViernes]

If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. It was not a conflict where two somewhat equal partners work out their difficulties, it was a war where the central government fought down an insurrection and during witch the south got utterly devastated and was under occupation for 10 years.

[oceanplexian]

You could also argue that the civil war was about restoring bodily autonomy to a group of people who had been enslaved and forced against their will by corporations and governments.

[amanaplanacanal]

I’m sure that’s the view from white southerners. The view from black southerners would be a little different.

It’s like the folks who are all nostalgic about the 50s. Sure, they were great if you were a straight cis white man. Not so much if you were gay or trans or black.

[SiempreViernes]

I'm not sure what you are disputing, are you saying the civil war was an act of gentle persuasion?

[meepmorp]

> it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves.

This is a hilariously skewed understanding of the civil war. Do you also believe the south seceded over states rights?

[tomrod]

Over their states rights to hold slaves, which were an important component in the agrarian economy and an established part of the Antebellum culture.

[ultraluminous]

If only the slaves had any appreciation to the important component they were in their slave master's culture, they'd probably complain a lot less and try harder to accommodate their agrarian needs.

sadly necessary /s