Replies

The pertinent question, which is often conveniently ignored: Were there a “long train of abuses” that justified the South’s attempt to seperate (sic) itself from the North, or were the causes “light and transient,” and not enough for the North to “allow” the South to be a new neighbor?

It is unfortunate that you insist upon conflating and conjoining separate issues. It makes what you say less credible. Since you appear new to FreeRepublic's WBTS threads I'm sure you'll be afforded a pass on whether discussions about motives, agendas and root causes of the Civil War have taken place. You should be relieved to know that they have been well represented here.

That said, your facile attempt to (one one hand) legitimize the south's reasons for quitting with an characterization of the north's acceptance of the resulting change of circumstance is nothing short of laughable. "We can't stand them as relatives but wouldn't object to them as neighbors". Really?!

First of all, there were no “long train of abuses”. There was only the election of Lincoln - a guy that Lost Causers consider both an abolitionist and a stone racist (nice cognitive dissonance there!). No, there was only The Particular Institution in all its sordid 'glory'.

We were already neighbors, partners, and family...unless you are referring to an unspoken attitude - that of adversaries. In that respect you could be correct. While most went about their business there were certainly elements who fomented discord and aggravated the sense of sectionalism between north and south.

Anti-revolutionaries here like to pretend

What and who are "Anti-revolutionaries"?

Nonsense, Lincoln could have, he COULD HAVE, publically (sic) acknowledged the transgressions of both sides, and made an earnest attempt to sue for peace.

So, if you are attacked and your property stolen by an avowed opponent your response is to surrender? Good to know.