I get it now. I'm just an ignorant yank that couldn't possibly understand the beauty of the antebellum southern way of life that was threatened by scurilous yankee insistance on following the legislative proceedures of the same Constituion those Rebel states ratified in the first place and later found to be too onerous. States rights over the democratic process and all that. Please.... the only Principle that mattered, the only right at stake, in spite of all the political rhetoric and attempts to obfuscate the issue (on both sides) was slavery. Pure and simple.
It amazes me when southerners who can see right through, and perfectly dissect, political spin when its on TV in the year 2002, become dumbstruck by the spin of their own Civil War (and long dead) politicians. I find it even more amazing when it comes from southern conservatives (I'm making an assumption about your political leanings here, so forgive me if they are incorrect), who don't seem to understand that they are parroting the same rhetoric of southern democrats who brought us the welfare state and near universal socialism.
While I will never deny any southerner the right to be proud of his state or the accomplishments of its soldiers and generals in the war, this blind devotion to the "rightness" of the Confederate cause and near religous adoration of Leaders like Lee, Davis and others is beyond me.
I have always stated that the Democratic Party was and still is a slave party (and the historical record on that is indisputable on the basis of fact). For any southerner that considers him or herself a conservative or Republican to mouth the lies of that party is a cognitive dissonance of collosal magnitude.
To me it is no different than when todays Muslims say they are against terrorism and suicide bombers, only to say "but" before launching into a rant on Isreal. No difference whatsoever.
Ignorant maybe, but not stupid if you can see through Demoncrat propaganda and understand that the good old boy Southern Demoncrats kept Martin Luther King so far back in jail they had to shoot peas to him through a peashooter to feed him. I lived through that time in the Deep South and was subtly threatened with murder once by a scary country hick for saying that blacks should have the same rights as whites.
There are a lot of people in FR who are very familiar with the Constitution and its history. I've learned a lot by reading their posts.
From what I can see, the South had a legitimate Constitutional argument for secession. The North and the South had compromised to agree on a Constitution. Slavery was recognized as legal, and the North agreed to return escaped slaves. The North reneged on its Constitutional duty to return the slaves. Perhaps they found it too onerous. Would the South had signed the Constitution if the North hadn't agreed to return their slaves? I don't know. Maybe some of the FR Constitutional people know (they probably won't agree with each other, however). Why should the South stay if the North was breaking a critical part (to them) of the Constitution?
Don't get me wrong. Slavery was morally wrong, but it was legal at the time. If that were so, why shouldn't a Southern slave owner have the right to move his legal property (i.e., his slaves) into newly acquired land opening up in the West. Could the Federal goverment or those Western states outlaw something that was accepted in the Constitution. (This may get into the Dred Scott decision which makes some awful arguments but perhaps has some good arguments too.)
I've always felt the South had the right to secede under the 10th Amendment. Others have cited the 9th. You might be interested in the opinion of President Hayes, a former Union brevet general. He said in his diary:
May 2 [1891]. Saturday.-At the G. A. R. [State Encampment] there was a little demagoguery in the way of keeping alive the bitterness of the war. A motion was made and carried against the purchase of Chickamauga battlefield, against Rebel monuments, etc., etc. The truth is, the men of the South believed in their theory of the Constitution. There was plausibility, perhaps more than plausibility, in the States' rights doctrine under the terms and in the history of the Constitution. Lee and Jackson are not in the moral character of their deeds to be classed with Benedict Arnold. They fought for their convictions, for their country as they had been educated to regard it. Let them be mistaken, and treated accordingly. Their military genius and heroism make the glory of the Union triumph.
I think there was a Harvard law professor after the war who argued that the South was correct constitutionally.
Of course it's "beyond" you. Don't feel bad. It's a Southern thing and some people just don't understand.
You really need to study both sides of the issue and maybe talk to some folks with other viewpoints. Gain some perspective. I do have books I can recommend if you're interested -- which I sincerely doubt.
You also might try galvanizing for a change while you're studing "tactical strategy."