Any military man that had sworn an oath to the Union prior to the war and broke it to fight for the south lacked the honor expected of the "officer and gentlemen" of the time. It is Lee's worst regret. Breaking his oath bothered him throughout the war and throughout the rest of his life. It was treacherous. Further, any politician or slave owning political influencer who pushed the "right" for secession over such inexcusable reasons is further a traitor and shame to their own families who had fought and died to break from true treason and build a Nation.

Many men find themselves on the wrong side of history, as "honorable" as they believed or were led to believe their causes to be at the time. So, making the above assessment with today's perspective is correct. And, making the same assertion of treachery for those I mentioned at the time is also true.

To the rest, I'm not sure how to respond. Buying or selling any nonsense that Lincoln had the political guile or desire to force the South into a pre-emptive strike as the North was planning to wage war or mobilize troops on the South unprovoked is utter nonsense and a complete revision of history.

Southern politicians had been pushing their own agendas and doing all within their power to retain a balance of power in Congress by assuring the expansion of slave states alongside non-slave states. This had been an ongoing political divide since the Missouri Compromise. They had no inherent right to secede IMO based on the fact that the declaration was to form a nation through a union of states that conceded to the majority opinion of the union and subordinated itself to a central government on all measures of a federal level. The south's desire to secede was an affront to the spirit of that charter. Had there been some incredible tyranny or wrong done... maybe. But, there were none. The right of secession is by no means clearly articulated and should not have any such threshold so low that it would trigger seccession based on false allegations of northern aggression and intrusion of states' rights (the right to keep, expand and protect slavery) to any such degree that would justify destroying the union and killing our own.

The South had every ability to continue their practice of slavery and no state right was being so intrusively interfered with to warrant any notion of "legal" or morally justified secession. The southern politicians were war hawks upset that the writing was on the wall for their diminishing influence in Federal politics through the growing imbalance of slave to free states that Westward expansion would bring; slavery's inevitable end; the economic impact of the industrialization and urbanization of the North; and benefits of westward growth. Their hypocrisy was never as brightly shining as when they cited the federal governments refusal to enforce the return of slaves (thereby impeding on the rights of free states) as a failure. They concocted a scenario, fired the first shot, and deployed the propoganda of an invasion that was nothing more than the appropriate reaction to a federal post under insurgent attack and in need of support.

Both sides strongly needed to not be the aggressor for a variety if internal and external reasons. So, the South taking any appearance to look to seek control of US land ran as counter to that as their ill conceived initial attack on Sumter or subsequent aggression against its reinforcements.

Southern propaganda flyers aside, history clearly shows all of the war of northern aggression nonsense as false. The only aggression was Southern butt hurt for lost political clout. Then, after they got their asses kicked, the excuses to bring honor to a less than honorable act began shaping and twisting the truth for its audience until it had so thoroughly become engrained in its culture that there was (sadly, is; for some) no way the earth could be round... right? The south was humbled on the biggest of stages and the resentment was tough to swallow and that feeling has passed on and legends grown for 160 years later.

It is not treacherous of me to assert that my forefathers who fought for an illegal and immoral cause were wrong. Nor, is it treacherous of me to assert that any of my forefathers before, during, after or today who behaved like racist, superior class minded assholes were not just that. If the shoe fits...

I love America. I hate the soy boy stance of appeasement that was allowed across the south to make untouchable legends out of some who do not deserve it. Allowing artifacts that perpetuated a remembrance of rebellion and oath breakers was weak and continues to be problematic today.

That said, I also think we are caught in a strong sense of presentism that may cause a significant overswing that all sides regret if not dialed back soon to some degree.

This post was edited on 6/22/20 at 12:00 am