‘New Yorker’ says ‘two-state solution’ was not the answer (during U.S. Civil War)

on 65 Comments

From a friend: This line in Rick Hertzberg’s review in The New Yorker of a book about British perspectives on the American Civil War (Aug 1 issue, page 64), really struck me because he actually used the term “two-state solution”:

Anyway, from the point of view of Britain as a dominating world power, a two-state solution had its attractions: wouldn’t a pair of smaller and mutually mistrustful American republics be less troublesome than a single great big one? Consideration like these might prompt musings that it would be nice if America would just go ahead and divide itself in two without fuss.

Of course, that was the British perspective. In the South, the attraction of a “two-state solution” was the preservation of a system that subjugated a huge chunk of the population into sub-human status. No h/t please.

    Leave a Reply