The implication of my posts is that the neo-confederates today offer an interpretation based on fantasy, not history.
The founding fathers had absolutely no doubt that they were establishing a permanent federal Union. Neo-confederates want to suggest that unilateral state secession was legal when it as nothing but revolution --revolution against a governnment that southerners had a large part in creating and one which they had controlled for decades prior to the Civil War.
Neo-confederates love getting a tear in their beer over the sacrifice of rebel soldiers when the record shows that the rebel armies melted away from desertion. Rebel armies depended much on conscription. Rebel armies didn't have nearly the success as commonly thought. The insurgent armies had not ONE major success outside Virginia THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WAR, excepting Chickamauga. Grant's army (later commanded by Sherman) advanced from Forts Henry and Donelson, through Nashville, took Vicksburg, moved across Tennnessee, into Georgia and through the Carolinas and except for Chickamauga met success everywhere.
Even the great hero Lee had as little success outside Virginia, as deposed Union Generals Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it. Lee's reputation hangs on one battle, Chancellorsville. His army had more casualties every day of the Seven Days' battle than McClellan's did. He narrowly avoided defeat at Antietam, in a campaign that was ill-considered. He wrecked his own army for offensive operations at Gettysburg in another ill-considered raid. He's way over-rated.
The war was caused by slavery -- by rebels willing to overthrow the government rather than see their peculiar institution be bridled in any way.
These are the facts of the matter, and you don't much like them. I can't help that.
I didn't post anything to you to start this.
I'd suggest that you just let it go.
Walt