Replies

Well, He and Robert Lee were both Virginians fighting for independence from a larger and more powerful Union, so I guess if the shoe fits...

Let me point out something else, which puts the Confederate effort into a clearer perspective, in terms of the "Law Of Nations" (as according to Vattel, the authority that the Founding Fathers looked to). The Revolution was justified in terms of the compact theory of Government (popular in the Anglo/Norman/Celtic world since Magna Carta). It was a true Counter Revolution, premised on the beleif that the Government had broken the compact.

But whereas the Colonies did not have sovereignty before the Revolution, the status of the original States as independent Nations was internationally recognized by the Treaty Of Paris, two years after Washington's victory at Yorktown. And, hence, under that prevailing understanding of the Law Of Nations, it was recognized that those new Nations were the judges of their own internal affairs.

Now it is true that the new States gave up some of their sovereignty to the new organization, in ratifying the Federal Union. But they did not give up the right to leave that Union, nor to subject their internal institutions & social values, in the new specifically limited Compact (Constitution)to some form of a collective. In terms of legality, then, they remained in a stronger position than their Colonial forefathers.

Now, as a Conservative Ohioan, I am very glad that the Southern States are still in the Union. But the social ostracization of pro-Confederates, to me, violates both the spirit of 1776, and the Constitution. as well as any sense of elemental fairness. It also illustrates the hubris always present when one generation assumes the right to pass judgment on others who walked in different times, in ways that reflected their own experiences, not the shallow & myopic experiences of their later critics.

William Flax

Now, as a Conservative Ohioan, I am very glad that the Southern States are still in the Union. But the social ostracization of pro-Confederates, to me, violates both the spirit of 1776, and the Constitution. as well as any sense of elemental fairness. It also illustrates the hubris always present when one generation assumes the right to pass judgment on others who walked in different times, in ways that reflected their own experiences, not the shallow & myopic experiences of their later critics.

Well stated. I think the civil war was an utter tragedy, but I think it has consequences which are still resonating today and which keeps the tragedy going.

I see the Federal government leading us all towards societal collapse, and it looks to me as if the only way to avoid being sucked in by the undertow is to cast off the lifeboats and get away from the wreck.

Insisting that people don't have a right to leave a government which no longer serves their interest, keeps us tied to this slowly sinking ship. I put forth the opinions I have of the past because I recognize the same essential problem in the here and now.

But the social ostracization of pro-Confederates, to me, violates both the spirit of 1776, and the Constitution. as well as any sense of elemental fairness. It also illustrates the hubris always present when one generation assumes the right to pass judgment on others who walked in different times, in ways that reflected their own experiences, not the shallow & myopic experiences of their later critics.

I don't see anybody "ostracizing pro-Confederates." It seems like the accursed varmints run rampant here.

"Hubris" cuts both ways. People attacking Lincoln and the Union troops here are also the ignoring the ideas and conditions of the time and judging 19th century people by a (faulty) late 20th century version of libertarianism. If you don't see hubris in neo-Confederate writers like DiLorenzo, you've missed an awful lot of what they're saying.