Because the worst thing those who descend from the families that embroiled the nation in that war can do is to entertain it as something more than it was.
I give a thing what I think it's worth. And if I've done that for a number of posts I don't see the point in dragging all of it forward to the next like Marley's chains.
I don't think anyone could reasonably call my larger post with numerous notes and quotes brief, but in sum, the Southern cause is clearly set out by the men who saw it to fruition. It's only a mystery to apologists laying in the weeds of a more modern complaint that the South attempted to use as a mechanism (but not motive) to withdraw and looking to ennoble anything that will found their cause.
Sure. Which is why I noted the official posture of states leaving the Union about the why of it. That newspaper quote just summed it nicely.
Truth is that states may have thought (and been right) that they had the right to withdraw and may well have been exercising that right, but the reason they were doing so was and remains, slavery.
A few border states.
Now, as soon as Lincoln could manage it what did he actually do about slavery? Exactly what he always envisioned would come about eventually, if farther down the line.
Right. It was the easier of the tasks before those who were opposed to slavery. And then they found their way to the second part, which is why none of those Union states had slaves for long.
Why not erect monuments to fallen and loyal subjects to the British Empire in Boston while you're at it?
lain:
Rather, the sacrifice was itself and in the service of ignorance and neither needs nor merit's public honor. For my part, you could take the sum of Confederate memorials and make a fishing/diving reef with them in the Gulf of Mexico.
No, you could say it stands for a particular form of government in relation to its people, since that was the root of the conflict, as slavery was the root of the Confederate cause.