Well that can't be true, because my trait is objectivity, and I don't see much of that coming from your side.
You start with a shotgun premise (”The problem for many such people is that they personalize it. If they come from a Northern state, or if they have ancestors who fought on the Union side during the war, they see the discussion as personal rather than abstract.”) as if only one side exhibits those attitudes.
I have no doubt that some people on the Southern side of the argument also do this. There is a tendency to knee jerk defend your ancestors or your state, whether they be right or wrong. To many it is just an extension of your immediate family.
The reason I do not include them in my criticism is because we don't currently have to live with the consequences of their side winning, we have to live with the consequences of the Union side winning.
I keep saying this. Much of our current problems are the result of consequences dating back to the Civil war. The assertion of such great Federal powers trace back to the abuse of them which occurred in that conflict.
Lincoln created "Fedzilla." Teddy Roosevelt expanded him. Woodrow Wilson expanded him even further. Roosevelt further still. Lyndon Johnson made him into the beast which is currently killing us all, and every Democrat since has been feeding and growing him.
Now we have this horrible monster which appears to be threatening all of our lives.
OK I had to chuckle at that one ;') If you don't see it, it is because you don't care to see it.
The reason I do not include them in my criticism is because we don't currently have to live with the consequences of their side winning, we have to live with the consequences of the Union side winning.
Fascinating. In your mind every evil in the nation came as a result of Lincoln enforcing the constitution. I know I shouldn't - but I have to ask: How do you think things would have been any different or measurably better had Lincoln allowed the slavers to split the nation?
Lincoln created "Fedzilla."
Complete and utter horse-pucky. So how's that whole objectivity thing working for you? ;')
And that is pure Lost Causer mythology on display.
In fact, the Federal Government after the Civil War was basically the same as before -- about 3% of GDP, once the debt was paid down.
And that's roughly the same as the time of President Washington.
It remained at that same level -- circa 3% of GDP -- for another 50+ years, until the "Progressive Era" of Woodrow Wilson (1913 to 1920) and Franklin Roosevelt (1933 to 1945).
Then and only then, with the 16th & 17th Amendments, the Federal Government grew from 3% to 5% and 10% not counting National Defense.
And the Solid South solidly supported this Federal growth, even through the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956, after which it finally began to dawn on white Southerners that they were not necessarily going to be the biggest beneficiaries of Federal redistributionist largess.
Goldwater's campaign in 1964 was the first which brought large numbers of Southerners to vote Republican.
Johnson's resulting land-slide began the latest round of Federal growth from 15% to today's 23%.
Of course, I don't blame the Democrat South for Texas Democrat President Johnson, but the fact is that Texas-Johnson represented the Old South's love of government largess.