The South was constitutionally and morally justified to protect slavery if you understand the nature of 19th century life and government. Any Southerner who was alive at the time would willingly announce to you the connection of constitutional government and slavery.
Unionists were prepared to make some concessions to keeping the Southern states in the union. Before the war they were more than willing to allow slavery to continue where it was already established. Ultimately, the slaveowners believed that Republican rule would mean an end to slavery, but that would have been a longer term consequence. So it wasn't just the survival of slavery in the narrower sense that was at issue. It was the questions of the expansion of slavery and the degree of power slaveowners would have that touched off the rebellion. These were means to the end of preserving slavery, but they went beyond the narrow understanding of maintaining slavery where it existed.
Were slaveowners and others "constitutionally and morally justified" in striving to preserve slavery? I'd have to say no, not constitutionally, and certainly not morally justified. An earlier generation of Virginians had recognized the evils of slavery and had dreamed of its end. It would have been far better to reconcile oneself to the end of slavery and work for gradual emancipation.
There were those in the antebellum South who held the idea that slavery underlay freedom, but it's not something we can accept today, nor was it something that ought to have been uncritically accepted at the time. And indeed, our idea of freedom may have grown up with or grown out of slavery, but even in Jefferson's time it was recognized that the two could not continue to coexist together forever. For many, 1860 was a turning point. The old combination of freedom and slavery was breaking down and a choice was necessary.
One can understand the Confederates and their ideas about freedom and slavery and why they acted as they did, and yet still not agree that what they did was wise or justifiable or for the best.
I agree that many great historians have begun as journalists or lawyers. I also believe in looking closely at the primary sources, records and etc. When Mr. DiLorenzo was challenged by myself on several of his statements on civil War attrocities and slavery as an issue of the war, I perceived a very flippant attitude from him. My gut tells me that DiLorenzo is typical of many neo-confederates. I graduated college in Mississippi and debated many of these folks. For the most part the leading (not rank and file) neo-confederates are pushing an agenda (with leftist methods not politics) for limited government by using the Confederacy as a model.
My friends, limited government is a beautiful thing. The problem is they are borrowing Confederate history and twisting it to fit a modern agenda. As a history person, no matter my modern ideology, I find that dangerous. If you do some homework you will find that many of these Neo-confeds are northern born and educated and have little background in either southern culture or Civil War history. As for myself, for the record I am of Northern ancestry but Virginia born and raised. (the yankhater name is a tongue- in-cheek family joke) So I tend to view the war from both sides.
What we have to understand is that as conservatives from the North and South we should not be refighting the Civil War. I have seen that certain political issues and figures from both sides would be embraced by conservatives today. Think about it....anyone who is patriotic enough to care about the Civil War or visit a battlefield is usually a conservative. You will not find filthy dreadlocked, communist, hippie, liberals at a battlefield unless its to watch a spotted owl or hide in the woods and do drugs. Our currant leftist, pro terrorist, lazy, anti-American, communist, multi-culturalist liberal drones you see marching at Berkeley hate Lincoln too. When I see those people hate Lincoln I get real careful not to bash him too much.
Let's be honest. Prior to the Socialist FDR era, most political figures liberal or conservative from the past would seem like a breath of fresh air today. We often make the mistake of taking past issues (the Civil War) and making modern fights out of them amongst conservatives. Again anyone who would be so patriotic as to CARE that much about American freedom and history (no matter if they prefer Lincoln or Lee) is a friend of mine.
If you are a conservative Southerner such as I am, your real enemy is one of these filthy kooks on our own soil that come from Southern college campuses, and southerners such as Clinton and Gore rather than a Yankee good ole boy who places a flag at the Lincoln memorial. We as conservatives look to the past for examples in courage and freedom. Liberals twist history for their own agendas, lie, steal our heroes, bash our Founders, ban our statues, and prop up socialist ranters as heroes.
While it may seem like the neo-Confeds I mention are giving the left a taste of their medicine, I believe it to be a dangerous path. Let us accept our history good and bad. Would you rather have Canada's lame history? At least our side cares about history enough to argue.