Unfortunately, the South wasn't right. You are l;ooking at it from your perspective of today to back then. It has proven out that the South's right to secede was a self inposed right, later deemed to be a non-right. They may have thought they had the right, you may say they had the right (by looking at situations of the past, laws of the time, wording of the constitution, etc.) but it is all amoot point and I fail to see the point of constantly bringing it up as a discussion point. The war WAS fought. One of the reasons WAS slavery. Lincoln's legal standing DID win out (no matter the "skull duggery"). And the Union DID win the war.

From this standpoint (all of which can be proven historically), I wish we would debate/argue points that did not include these issues. It's kind of like saying Grant was a bad general. You can argue all the separate points, but "he" won the war. Or like me saying I was the best half-miler in Oklahoma in High School. I won nearly every meet I raced. EXCEPT, I finished 2nd at state both years! The guys who beat me at state lay a claim to being better that can be well argued based on results of the final issue. They won the big ones. There is no way I can discount the fact. Nor can you discount that Lincoln thwarted secession. That he subdued a rebellion. That the courts sided with Lincoln. Etc. Etc.

Perhaps we can give up the "Lost Cause" perspective. Most of the CSA ddebaters seem to be on the defensive, for what seem to be the reasons I list above. Perhaps accepting the facts of what happened we can get on with more productive discussions.

BTW, I do not perceive it as a "Lost Cause". I agree that some of the things Lincoln did to pursue the war seem to have been illegal/immoral, etc. So I am not anti-confeerate. I just get sick of seeing arguements based on blind emotion with derogatory (sorry about the spelling) bent.

Sorry for rambling. Perhaps we can all try to see both sides of the issues?