Guys
Having made the mistake of ploughing through the entire thread

, although I was skimming a lot toward the end of the J&M v SF exchanges. As other posters said a lot depends on the details. However:
a) I think provided the CSA wins independence it will maintain it barring serious clashes or a total collapse of the latter. Once it's even grudgingly acknowledged by the north there will be bitterness, especially after a long war or if external powers are drawn in. However I doubt there will be enough desire to restart the war and conquer what is now recognised as an independent state under most circumstances.
b) The question of seriously clashes might become relevant depending as various people have mentioned on revanchist feeling. Most people seem to think this would come from the south given the highly unrealistic views of much of their leadership. This might not however be the case where it's been a long war which they have 'won' via exhausting northern will or foreign intervention. I think in such circumstances any fire-breathers are likely to be sat on pretty quickly by their fellows who don't want to restart the issue again, especially as many will realise how lucky they were to survive the 1st clash. However I could see continued border clashes, especially in the west and where either/both sides have groups who have lost out and been forces to flee to the opposing state. It's possible that under the right [wrong?] circumstances a political leader might swing a war from this. However would say it's unlikely if the 1st war has been pretty long and bloody.
c) I think more likely would be a serious collapse in the CSA, drawing in the US especially. Two main reasons for this. While I think Snake was way off target his quoting of the Confederate Constitution raises the points:
i) A state that denies itself protection for it's own industries in this period is going to seriously cripple hope of industrial development. Britain made this mistake and despite being the greatest industrial power at the start of the period with a large home market and well developed economic base gradually declined relative to it's competitors. [Note I'm not saying Free Trade was the only reason but it, coupled with other opposition to state intervention were a major factor]. Given the relatively primitive economic development of the CSA I can see it struggling to get major industries off the ground and suffering continually from foreign imports. Ultimately I suspect the CSA would have to change it's stance on this.
ii) It's allowance for any state to withdraw from the confederation, virtually at any time. This makes for a very unstable situation not to mention if say somewhere like Mississippi or Alabama withdrawal and the disruption of internal communications resulting. Or possibly even more so if Louisiana was involved with possibly effects on trade down the Mississippi.
The south would sooner or later have to see social and political change. Less possibly the question of blacks and slavery than the interests of the ordinary whites in comparison with the large estate holding aristocracy. This could occur fairly soon after a long war of independence, as with the system already disrupted the people who have fought and bled for the state are likely to demand a larger share in its governance. [Major conflicts often prompt this]. Like the landowner aristocracy in Britain, who also dominated the British economy in the 18th and early 19th centuries and were responsible for much early industrial investment, the planters are going to have to give ground sooner or later, one way or another. If it's later and violently then that might prompt US intervention but that and whether it was successful or not would depend on the circumstances.
Steve