I guess we've run this thread so far off the rails that we're now into such freewheeling fashion freedom, we've lost the fashion part. Which is perfectly okay because when it comes to personal passions, history is right up there with fashions.
There's no way on Earth the South would accept Indiana! There were a couple of Hoosiers who are particularly reviled South of the Mason-Dixon Line, Gens. Grant and Sherman.
It wasn't a hunger for power that drove Abraham Lincoln, it was a desire to preserve the United States and its Constitution. As a lawyer friend pointed out, there is no escape clause in the Constitution so allowing the Confederate States to secede would be tantamount to letting any other state secede for any reason that might strike their fancy, as South Carolina had threatened to during Andrew Jackson's Presidency. He was less of a fan of that notion than Lincoln so South Carolina backed down.
As to the possibility of the US and the CSA surviving as separate nations, read Reunion by my lawyer friend Michael Metroke, published by Outskirts Press, available on Amazon. It's a counterfactual novel of the Post-Civil War US starting from the premise that the South won the war and what would have happened in the aftermath. It's a good read, even though it took a little while for it to hit its stride. Once it does (within 3 chapters) you won't put it down.
But I digress, Mike makes a strong case for the economic necessity of the nation reuniting. The South couldn't survive without the North and life was more difficult for Northern manufacturers, especially in the textile industries, without the South.
As to the numbers of people who might have lived without the war, it's a good question that's totally unanswerable. How many more blacks would have died from the abuses of slavery? How many Southerners would have died of malnutrition as their economy went into a death spiral? What if, as things went downhill in the South, there had been a slave uprising?
Because the economies of the North and South would have been stunted, how many more people would either not have been born or would have died in childhood? The Civil War, like most wars, drove advances in medicine and wound care and, more importantly, public health. Without those advances how many more people would have died from what were then accepted as natural causes?
In his Second Inaugural Address Lincoln hypothesized that Americans might have to repay drop for drop the blood drawn by the slaveowners' lash. He guessed that we hadn't yet so it's quite possible that the continuation of slavery alone would have cost at least as many lives as the Civil War itself.
Medical Advice: To maintain your natural life expectancy do not suggest to Oregonians and probably not Washingtonians either that Canada is at California's Northern border. If you were to say such a thing in either of those West Coast States, it would probably be the last thing you said.
I have to say though, the prospect of all of you whackjob Trumpettes finally leaving us enlightened denizens of the Left Coast in peace has some appeal. If we combine Oregon's economy, which right now has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country despite our being a magnet for young people, with that of Washington and then add the world's 6th largest economy, who exactly would get the lesser part of that deal??? Intriguing!
Finally Moon, as far as learning how to make sweet tea goes, I've drunk enough of it to know that's the last thing I want to learn! My eating habits are bad enough without adding that to the mix! Honestly, I enjoyed the time I spent in the South when I was consulting, especially Louisiana, and liked the people I met, but I draw the line at sweet tea. My Dad was debilitated in his retirement by late onset diabetes. No thanks, I'll find my own way to go!
