I know that you believe that the secessionists were right and that the Union was wrong. So, this is all simple for you. People have tried to explain to you why they believe that the Union had a right to maintain the integrity of the USA, but you have rejected that reasoning and so you continue to believe as you believe. And, that’s okay. It’s okay that you disagree with other people about this matter and it’s okay that you’re unhappy with the way in which our history unfolded. It shouldn’t shock you to learn that I am unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation’s history, too. It’s all very normal to feel that way.
People have tried to explain to you why they believe that the Union had a right to maintain the integrity of the USA, but you have rejected that reasoning and so you continue to believe as you believe. The difference between your position and mine is that I have no cognitive dissonance between what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1861. My position consistently applies the same principle to both eras. Yours does not.
Your position applies one set of rules to 1776, and a completely different and subjective set of rules to 1861. You have yourselves believing two opposite and contradictory things, both of which cannot be true.
It is actually a fascinating psychological dichotomy, and it is eerily reminiscent of the same sort of mental bait and switch Liberals do routinely with everything else.
And, that’s okay. It’s okay that you disagree with other people about this matter and it’s okay that you’re unhappy with the way in which our history unfolded. It shouldn’t shock you to learn that I am unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation’s history, too. It’s all very normal to feel that way.
As I have mentioned before, it is not a consequence of my being "unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation's history", from my perspective it is more serious than that. The US FedGov is a "Titanic", and the math says it's going to sink.
We are being told we have to go down with the ship because years ago they fought a war about the right to leave, and the subjugation side won.
This is no comfort to those of us who want to escape the sinking should the need arise. We are less concerned with how bad things happened 150 years ago than we are that as a consequence of those bad things which happened 150 years ago, we too will be forced to undergo bad things happening in the present.
In other words, what happened 150 years ago in the past is used today as a justification for a suicide pact. This puts a man in the awkward position of having to rehabilitate the bad press of the previous attempts to become independent in order to justify an assertion of the same principle today.
That I am unhappy that 600 thousand people were unnecessarily killed 150 years ago is completely beside the point.
Here's another one of those new morality changes to society the North Eastern Liberals are still trying to push.
Christie vetoes NJ bill that would allow transgenders to change their birth certificates
They are simply not content with any society that isn't changing it's moral positions. This is why concepts such as "change" and "equality" are so ubiquitous on the left.
They always want to force society to "change" and they always want to force "equality" on it. (that's what communism is.)
"Change" and "Equality" is more or less their mantra, and this is not *MY* recent observation, this is the thesis of the book "Leftism Revisited" by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin.
It has a foreword by William F. Buckley, so it's conservative pedigree is well earned. I suggest more people read it because it gives great insight into the forces with which we are contesting.