Hmmmmm... now there's an interesting Latin term.
DiogenesLamp: "I think people have been misinformed about the war since 1861, and even more so 150 years later.
I think most modern people lack the necessary cognitive capabilities to comprehend the zeitgeist of that time period, and always try to evaluate it based on what are the modern herd impression."
But FRiend, you are amongst the most misinformed, and stubbornly resistant to truth of any poster on Free Republic.
You have a set of ideas that you will not be budged from, regardless of how false they are shown to be.
DiogenesLamp: "They are also unaware of how so many things that are a result of that war, and continue to negatively impact society today.
Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Government's Anti-Religious policies, and Gay Marriage can all be traced back to the aftermath of that war."
Now there is a logical fallacy with an official Latin name: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Surely as somebody eager to toss out terms like "Argumentum ad populum" you are most familiar with the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Your hand-waving aside, there there is no proof that the Civil War itself had anything to do with the events you so decry.
DiogenesLamp: "Not just frustrations, but concern that the economic path we are on will only end in tragedy.
When chained to a mob that cannot comprehend that you can't have an everlasting spending party, one becomes desperate to disassociate from such individuals who will obviously come to ruin at some point."
And yet virtually everyone posting on Free Republic agrees with those sentiments, at least up to a point.
Still, most of us feel no need to jump from there to calling "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" the heart and soul of evil, indeed just the opposite.
We see Lincoln and the Republicans as a great example of how the greatest of crises can be met and brought eventually to a better end.
We blame Jefferson Davis for starting the war and credit Lincoln for winning it.
DiogenesLamp: "It's not that people allow themselves to get tangled up in the slavery issue, it's that any discussion of secession cannot be considered rationally by the team cheerleaders for the Union.
They have a religious fervor regarding the question of separating from the Union.
To allow such a thing is tantamount to saying their "team" was in the wrong, and they simply love their team, and will admit no such thing under any circumstances."
But not a word of that is true, as we have endlessly tried to point out, but you won't listen.
Indeed, you can't listen, because listening is not part our you psychological makeup, is it?
You are not here to listen, you are here to propagandize, so just ignore everything else.
The fact is that everyone here understands that slavery was the law of the land, in 1860 in the South.
We also know that slavery was the core reason for their secession, and nothing you claim can change that.
But nearly everyone here disputes your claim that we believe lawful, peaceful secession is constitutionally impossible.
We don't.
We think it's entirely possible if done correctly, as our Founders intended -- by mutual consent of Congress, or by material "breach of compact."
But there is no chance today that a majority of citizens of any state would vote for a lawful secession, much less a repeat of the unlawful secessions of 1860 and 1861.
DiogenesLamp: "They have bought in to the belief that Separation is impossible, and if you disagree, you must be a supporter of Slavery, and therefore your opinion need not be respected."
Not true, as explained above.
DiogenesLamp: "It was very relevant to the economics and financial assets of the South, but it was completely irrelevant to whether or not they had a right to leave;
A distinction which is apparently too subtle for many people to grasp."
Despite your exalted self-opinion, your own mind is in no way "subtle" or even supple -- you utterly fail to grasp what has been endlessly explained.
So here it is, as simple as simple can get: Civil War did not begin because of slavery or tariffs, Civil War did not begin because of secession, Civil War did not begin because of the new Confederacy.
Civil War only began after the new Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri.
So how hard can that be to grasp?
Once you grasp that, your whole problem goes away, and you can reject the example of the Confederacy as being just stupidity in motion, while defending the possibility that a lawful secession could still be constitutional.
So what exactly is your problem with that?
I think it is instructive that the people who were working for an independent Scotland did not base their case upon claims that George II was a drunken bum, that Bonnie Prince Charlie was some kind of special hero or that either side back then was right or wrong. They accepted the outcome of the Battle of Culloden and understood that 18th century disputes have nothing to do with whether or not Scotland should be independent today. And, the proponents skillfully succeeded in convincing folks to permit an election to decide the question of independence now.
If there are people here in the USA who think that certain parts of the USA should become independent of the USA, then they should study how the proponents of an independent Scotland succeeded in getting London to permit the people of Scotland to decide the issue by election. Modern day secessionists should learn from that example. It is a mistake for them to try to relitigate the issues that were important in the 1860's. They should refuse to pick at old scabs by arguing about Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. They should decline to discuss tariffs or slavery. They should focus instead upon the reasons that they want some independence somewhere now. How would independence somewhere improve things somewhere today?