[RebelBanker]

I agree with your point on the major shifts in the 20th century, but would counter that these would not be possible were it not for the massive changes by Lincoln in the 19th. I would also argue that Lincoln was a life long adherent to the principles of the Whig party: a nationalized currency and "internal improvements." Therefore, I doubt that he would have been willing to decentralize anything.

We can split hairs on whether or not the WBTS was technically a "civil war" or a "revolution" but a lot of the problems the Confederate States had in fighting it were caused by the lack of central power. Thus, your point on this is well taken.

At to the outcome of the War, it happened and no preference of mine can affect it. I would certainly concur that some good came out of it (notably the abolition of slavery) but also believe that it was an unnecessary war, even to that end. As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I have promised to defend the Confederate soldiers' reputations and honor, NOT to re-fight the War.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Your Humble Servant...

[Restorer]

I have no objection to defense of the honor of Confederate soldiers' reputation and honor. They fought as valiantly as any group of men in history. I have myself often defended them on this board and elsewhere.

The tragedy of the Confederacy is not that it lost, but that it represented one of the worst causes in all of history. So much bravery in the service of such a rotten cause...