Perhaps you should read more of his work. And not be so tetchy about a war that was lost 140 years ago. It is intirely probable the the South could have gained by diplomacy and litigation what it threw away in its jingoistic haste to war against a foe it could not logistically defeat.
If this article is representative of his work -- and his affiliation with the neocon
National Review is certainly no point in his favor -- I think I can better spend my reading time elsewhere.
I am not touchy about the War for Southern Independence; I'm simply pointing out a ridiculous analogy drawn by the author. I could have called into question a number of other historical references he made (and omitted), but it does seem particularly curious that, in an article intended to compare the present with the 1930s, he would bring up "a war lost 140 years ago" that has no relevance whatsoever to his topic.