The funny thing is that George Washington et al were actual traitors and revolutionaries--they overthrew the existing British colonial governments by force!
The Southern secessionists did no such thing. They won legitimate control of legitimate democratic-republican institutions at the ballot box. They used the same institutions which had ratified the constitution to nullify it--a right which, having not been explicitly granted to the Federal Government or forbidden the states, was clearly reserved by the states per the 10th amendment!
Can we really pretend that our government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" when revoking that consent is "treason" and grounds for total war?
The evil of slavery has been successfully leveraged to screen the North's imperialism and obscure the South's principled adherence to the founders' intent. Lincoln's choice to wage ware is blamed on the South. The clear meaning of the constitution is cast aside. The despotic nature of reconstruction is forgotten. Slavery was evil, ergo North good, South evil.
This standard, of course, by which imperialist aggression is justified by the moral failings of the conquered people, is itself considered to be evil in every other case. But not in the case of the American South. Slavery bad, you understand. So many still openly celebrate the murder of hundreds of thousands of their boys and the destruction of their society.
Yes. Perhaps if the chief cause of secession were taxation or political oppression, more nuance could be tolerated regarding the South.
>This standard, of course, by which imperialist aggression is justified by the moral failings of the conquered people, is itself considered to be evil in every other case
No.
I am a somewhat-defender of the American 2nd amendment for them purpose of defense against tyranny.
I would be less upset with the actions of January 6, for example, if it were against a despotic president who claimed a third term, or who had seized Congress with the secret service by force to coerce an outcome. Or if a president had assassinated his opponent in Congress, as a former president claims is his right to do.
In other words: the ends sometimes justify the means.
> Yes. Perhaps if the chief cause of secession were taxation or political oppression, more nuance could be tolerated (?!) regarding the South.
So you're willing to forgive and largely ignore the role of slavery in a revolution "with" slavery, but you're not willing to do so in a secession "for" slavery? I can't help but notice that this line of reasoning applies more moral weight to the mindset of a few political leaders than it does to the enslavement of millions. Could it be that this is more of a rationalization of the contradiction between two of your priors (union founders good, confederate founders evil) than a true statement of principle?
>This standard, of course, by which imperialist aggression is justified by the moral failings of the conquered people, is itself considered to be evil in every other case
>No.
I'm not sure that Jan 6 is a useful comparison. Consider the Vietnam war instead. When discussing Vietnam, would I be within my rights to declare the Vietnamese evil and undeserving of a fair hearing in the court of history, their point of view dismissed as intolerable nuance, simply because we consider totalitarian communism to be an abject evil? Of course not! If anyone made such an argument, you would immediately be suspicious of their motives. You would be suspicious because you understand that, though totalitarian communism was a great evil, a good-faith understanding of the history requires that we, at a minimum, hear the Vietnamese side of things, consider the full range of their motivations and have the good grace to question our own.
All Southerners want with regards to the history of the war is the same good-faith and courtesy that's afforded to the Vietnamese, but apparently that's too much to ask.
