[Non-Sequitur]

Gladly, as soon as youse acknowledge the fact that the North was,in fact, the aggressor during the 'recent unpleasantness'...

How can I acknowledge that which I know to be false? The south was the agressor. The south fired on Sumter, not the other way around. Sumter was the property of the federal government and the army had every right to resupply the troops there.

...and that the denial of states' rights, regardless of the policy in question, was the issue.

What states right was being denied?

Southern rebellion? Even the terminology is biased.

It's a pretty fair description of the southern actions.

[bk1000]

It's all in how you choose to look at it, Non.

Southerners see the Yankees as the aggressors, hence "The War of Northern Aggression"

One might argue the right of the Soviets to "re-supply" Cuba
also. So what if a few extra nukes ended up in the shipment?

The right of a sovereign state to secede from the union.
(I know this 'right' is arguable)

Secession is to rebellion as freedom fighter is to terrorist

I won't argue that the world, much less the US, is a better place than it would be had the Confederacy prevailed. Had secession been allowed, and had slavery continued, popular opinion would have eventually ended it through economic sanctions and boycotts, and the CSA would probably resemble Europe. I started this simply to warn someone about getting sucked in to this very thing! Perhaps I should follow my own advice. You may never understand southern pride, but that's OK. It's not a bad thing, as celebrated by most.