I’d have more respect for the ned-confederate cause except for two things.
They’re outraged by alleged mistreatment of southern women by Union soldiers, yet support a government created for the primary purpose of perpetuating an institution that gave 1/3 of the women in their “country” no practical legal protection at all against rape.
They may exist, but I’ve yet to see neo-confederates posting about their horror at American “war crimes” in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. By any standard you care to use, these vastly exceed the greatest atrocities claimed against Union soldiers.
Which makes it look very much like neo-confederates aren’t really against rape or killing of civilians as such. They just object to their own people being on the receiving end of such.
That’s a perfectly logical position, but it hardly stands out as morally or ethically consistent.
They're usually too busy condemning the United States for actions ("atrocities"?) against indians (southern US troops appear curiously and conspicuously absent from these conflicts...must just be an oversight ;-)
is there any need to label neo confederates?
Neo this neo that, it’s all we ever hear form the left when talking about our side.