The Brits could have said that about the colonists too. Pulling a nation apart is not an evil, especially if the two sections are incompatible. Many countries broke off the USSR and they were not considered foolish, venal and selfish. Panama seceded from Columbia and nobody condemned them. south Sudan is trying to secede from North Sudan and somehow they are not considered evil.
You would think that people would learn from history
Oh believe me, people do. The Confederates looked back to the American Revolution as just the type of thing they were doing.
only to devise a structural order virtually identical to that which they had run away from. Well, with one distinct difference - the memorializing of a permanent and perpetual institution of slavery.
Actually they made quite a few improvements on the original constitution, fixing areas that had been abused or allowed loopholes or etc. The Confederate constitution had election reform and impeachment power reform. It also placed more restrictions on the purposes for which congress could tax and spend. It also eliminated cost over-run contracts. There go those thousand dollar toilet seats. It also gave the president a line-item veto. And it also reworded the "necessary and proper" clause (the so called elastic clause). And unlike the US constitution, the CSA constitution banned the slave trade and gave Congress the power to prohibit the introduction of new slaves from states not members of the Confederacy. It also protected a master's right to his property in slaves, but that was nothing new. The US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision had upheld that position long ago (despite a Southern court's ruling that Scott should be freed. At any rate, Scott's Southern master still freed him despite the SCOTUS decision).
The Confederate Constitution also included the bill of rights in it, not as some tacked-on after thought.
why did they create a cheap imitation?
Yeah that stuff in the confederate constitution limiting taxing and spending and etc. was sure lousy lame stuff. /s
The fact is the south is infinitely better without the confederacy than it EVER would have been with
So So false. You can claim everything was all about slavery, but at any rate, even if you accept this false premise as true, slavery was on its way out (Confederate leaders said as much). It was not going to last much longer. Consider it. Seriously. The South of today (had they won the war) would have had a more limited government with more restrictions on taxing and spending and etc. and would likely have a lot less debt and less infringements on personal and State rights. But no. Somehow, we are supposedly 'better off' under a big government that is so terribly in debt and that is become more socialistic every year. uh huh. Sure.
Total non sequitur.
Pulling a nation apart is not an evil, especially if the two sections are incompatible.
I disagree but even if you could separate the morality associated with the insurrection they weren't and aren't incompatible, except for a few malcontents.
Actually they made quite a few improvements on the original constitution...
Even if true, it made little difference to jeff davis who ignored any rule that got in his way.
...slavery was on its way out (Confederate leaders said as much).
Baloney
Yeah that stuff in the confederate constitution limiting taxing and spending and etc. was sure lousy lame stuff. /s
It was when it was ignored whenever inconvenient.
The South of today (had they won the war) would have had a more limited government with more restrictions on taxing and spending and etc. and would likely have a lot less debt and less infringements on personal and State rights.
There is zero evidence that this is even remotely true and the likelihood is that the con-federacy wouldn't have lasted five years.