If the early Republicans had chosen Seward instead of Lincoln, they would have been much wiser and there might well have been no invasion and no war.
BTW, as one example, pray tell ONE thing that Jeff Davis (admittedly a failed executive but not an enemy of HIS country such as Clinton and Carter) did that begins to resemble much less approach Sherman's "March to the Sea" the systematic waging of war against women, children, elderly and cripples while their men were fighting the tyranny. Do you deny that Sherman's purpose was to starve the South into submission and to otherwise do damage for its own sake by burning barns, homes and even libraries and looting anything valuable and transportable????
Does the good Bishop feel the way you do about the Southern rebellion? Then why aren't you both showing your support by living in the occupied Southland? If not part of the occupied then aren't you by definition an occupier?
If the early Republicans had chosen Seward instead of Lincoln, they would have been much wiser and there might well have been no invasion and no war.
And you would still not be living in your confederate nirvana it seems. I would also point out that if the Davis regime had not fired on Sumter there might have been no war either.
Do you deny that Sherman's purpose was to starve the South into submission and to otherwise do damage for its own sake by burning barns, homes and even libraries and looting anything valuable and transportable????
I would have a harder time denying it if there was any evidence of the widespread starvation you talk of, and of the libraries and what not you say were destroyed wholesale, or of cities leveled and ares desolated.