Lost in this discussion is the premise from the article posted above: America faces a crossroads very similar to those prior to Fort Sumter. More government, less nationalism, maybe socialism, which way do we go?
A simple and accurate statement followed by a logical question.
“The South lost their rebellion. Deal with it”
Indeed. That’s what we are doing now, dealing with the ramifications of having lost the war and federalism, the core of the Confederacy’s government and, once upon a time, the United States. What the southern states tried to get away from was a future susceptible to total federal government dominance and presidential dictators — exactly where we are today, compliments of Abraham Lincoln.
The northern victory on the battlefield — though it took pathetically long considering the odds, and thus, certainly nothing to brag about — has brought us to brink of defeat in terms of self governance and freedom.
Your “victory” is a cold dish indeed. And yet you eat it gleefully and gratefully. It appears that Aristotle was right, there are some people who really do want to be taken care of by the government from the cradle to the grave. Aristotle called them “natural slaves.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that you unwittingly support that which you hate about the South, only under the guise of socialism.
No, the crossroad then was expansion of slavery or not. Whether the government had the right to establish laws in the territories as the Constitution said or not. Whether states rights extended to all states or just the Southern states. There is no similarity between the two, unless you want to say it was a choice between big government under Lincoln vs. bigger, more intrusive government under Davis.
Yes, America is at a crossroads. We do have to choose which path we will take, lower spending or higher spending. Smaller government or more government. Global expansion or domestic priorities. Today's hyper-partisan Washington and the boobs we elect to Congress - on both sides of the aisle - seem unwilling to tackle the issues that need to be tackled and make the hard decisions. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But dusting off the Lost Cause and pretending that it was actually something that it wasn't is ridiculous. The South didn't rebel against the government in Washington, it WAS the government in Washington. For decades prior to the rebellion the South had held a disproportionate level of influence at all levels in D.C. from the number of residents in the White House to the number of clerks in the cabinet departments. If government had grown out of control in 1860 it was because the Southern leadership had let it. So the idea that the rebels were motivated by fear of Washington control is ridiculous in the extreme.
If this nation is to fall and split into two or more countries, and I pray that it does not, then looking to the socialists in 1863 Richmond as an example is absolutely the wrong thing to do. All you need do is look about 85 years earlier than that for all the examples that you need. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and James Monroe should be our guides, not Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert Lee or Thomas Jackson.
The South lost. For that I am eternally grateful. Their cause was wrong and their premise was flawed from the beginning. They did not flee big government, they left for the right to keep their fellow humans in bondage. And all the Southron revisionism and papering over the facts that you care to produce will not change that. Their cause was not the cause of today. Southern leaders in Congress today are the problem rather than the solution. Direction and inspiration for any future conflict will not come from the memories of the Southern rebellion but from respect and guidance from the American rebellion.