Replies

I don’t disagree that Massachusetts colonists believed they were defending their rights, just as English rebels in 1642 and Confederates in 1861 did.

The problem is that defending their rights required, or they believed it did, stepping beyond the established legal and constitutional procedures.

They all believed, and arguably they were correct to do so, that they had no choice, that the existing legal and constitutional procedures no longer protected their rights.

But the minute they went beyond those procedures, they became revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the existing order and replacing it with a new and better (or so they believed) one.

You seem to be intent on demonstrating that the men of 1776 acted constitutionally and the men of 1861 did not. I don’t see it. To my mind, they were both revolutionists. Whether they were justified or not in their revolution was dependent not on whether it was constitutional, since a constitutional revolution is a contradiction in terms, but on the goals of that revolution.

The men of 1776 had as their goal increasing liberty, the goal of the men of 1861 was to prevent an extension of human liberty. To my mind, that’s why the American Revolutionaries were justified in their rebellion, and the Confederates were not.

Sherman Logan: "You seem to be intent on demonstrating that the men of 1776 acted constitutionally and the men of 1861 did not."

No, hardly, only trying to put the right actors in their proper roles, and show the moral equivalency between 1775 British troops marching on Lexington and 1861 Confederate troops firing on Fort Sumter:

Both Brits and Confeds had just revoked their 84 year-old compacts with Americans -- unilaterally and "at pleasure".
Both demanded surrender of American militia/military force.
Both used their own military forces as substitutes for peaceful, good-faith negotiations.
Both inspired fierce resistance from Americans who did not want to see the old order changed by brutal military assault.

So why is all this even important?
Because, as you well know, our Lost Cause propagandists have concocted an entirely different narrative, where somehow they were the victims, they were "oppressed", and they were set-upon by brutal military forces, etc., etc.
Our Lost Causers tell us that they were the 1861 Massachusetts colonists, facing down the might of Yankee/British forces marching on their Lexington & Concord.

So I'm merely here to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Confederates at Fort Sumter played the roles of, not Massachusetts colonists, but rather the British Army marching to establish a new order where they could dictate terms, regardless of old compacts.

So what, exactly, don't you "get" about that?

You seem to be intent on demonstrating that the men of 1776 acted constitutionally and the men of 1861 did not. I don’t see it. To my mind, they were both revolutionists. Whether they were justified or not in their revolution was dependent not on whether it was constitutional, since a constitutional revolution is a contradiction in terms, but on the goals of that revolution.

Exactly.