Still reading the Grand and Lee, and the book talks about the fact that what sourthern states were trying to do was within Constitutional limits of what what States can do at that point. This raised an imporatan question for me because though I agree with what Lincoln was fighting for, he apparantly overrode what constitution says. I wonder how civil war would have been handled in age of information/media today or if would have taken place at all. How do we know if the leader is doing the right thing or not by overriding the constitution in a democracy. It is easy to figure out, couple of centuries later but how do people make that decision in real time.
States were much more loosely bound together in the union but even in that case it was considered right thing to do to use military force to keep the states together. At that point, I would asusme popular vote in south would have gone in the direction of spliting from the union. I dont have any data yet but I am just making guess based on the fact that how ferociously the war was fought. In that case, if Lincoln was pollster like many politicians today, I wonder if he would have rached for wrong conclusion. Also from the perspective of India/Parkistan/Kashmir issue, I wonder how many analogies can be driven.