[Gunslingr3]

One of the things I most hold against the Democrats/Confederates of that day was that they were perfectly happy with the prospect of inducing foreign powers (England and France) to act against their fellow Americans for the furtherance of their rebellion.

Do you hold it against the Founders that they induced France to act against their fellow Englishman for the furtherance of their rebellion?

The bid for Southern Independence was a bid for limited federal government. The last attempt to keep the consolidation of power from continuing in Washington, D.C. We have seen what that failure wrought - trillions in debt and the federal government recognizing no limit to its powers.

They tried to stop Leviathan before it grew too entrenched. They were crushed for their temerity, their homes and property torched to compel fealty to the politicians in Washington, D.C., and our liberties are the victim.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Before one credits the rebellion with an effort to stop leviathan, I think an examination of the behavior of the CSA in it's short history is helpful. If one faults the triumph of the North for what the federal government later became over 145 years, I think that one must acknowledge that the heavy-handed Richmond regime had even more oppressive potential had it only survived.

[mkjessup]

Here ya go, this fell off the front bumper of your pickup truck:

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Do you hold it against the Founders that they induced France to act against their fellow Englishman for the furtherance of their rebellion?

The Founders brought in Europeans to fight Europeans. The rebs wanted to bring in aliens to fight fellow Americans. A violation of the Monroe Doctrine to say the least and if successful would have resulted in America being the unhappy permanent plaything of European rivalries.

[since 1854]

The Confederate government was WAY more centralized and oppressive than the federal government is today. Don't be misled by neo-Confederate lunatics.

[LexBaird]

The bid for Southern Independence was a bid for limited federal government.

No it wasn't. The South had no problem at all with oppressive Federal government, when it benefited them. For example, Jackson's Trail of Tears land grab, the Dred Scott decision, and the Fugitive Slave Act.

What they objected to was the inevitability of the population census of the Free Soil states shifting the balance of power permanently away from the Slave states. That meant that the writing was on the wall for their precious "peculiar institution" on which they had chosen to invest their economy.

What expansion of Federal power do you propose the South rose in rebellion from? That they tried to secede merely to prove they had a right to secede? Or did they have a crystal ball to see FDR in the future? What part of the Republican Platform of 1860 do you think triggered the secessionist before Lincoln ever took the oath of office?

[Non-Sequitur]

The bid for Southern Independence was a bid for limited federal government.

Complete nonsense. The South had exerted a disproportionate level of influence over the government and its power for the 80 years prior to the rebellion. If it had grown into an intrusive monster then it's because the Southern politicians grew it.

They tried to stop Leviathan before it grew too entrenched. They were crushed for their temerity, their homes and property torched to compel fealty to the politicians in Washington, D.C., and our liberties are the victim.

Then initiated an armed rebellion against the federal government and got beaten for their pains.