[Originally responded to in-line, but the software doesn't allow more than 2 URL links.]

First, I nowhere said "categorically". But there are a number of people who can't get over their notions of the South as "freaks", and I even went so far as to accept the label, though using Flannery O'Connor's phrasing, which notes that Southerners know they're freaks but also have a keen appreciation for the freak in others. The thing I love best about the South is its freakdom. And I still contend that the inability to understand the Southerners' attitudes in a slightly more wizened light makes it hard for the Democratic Party to make too much of a recovery there, whether you think that's worth anything or not.

Second, okay, Atlanta burning was a bad example, the destruction on the way to the sea is the issue there. Oleeb defends it as Sherman just doing what he had to, someone here notes it was 20% of Georgian farmland. I simple bring up the analogies - if the Israelis burn a swath through the Gaza strip or Lebanon to break the backs of resistance, the civilians' will to fight, will we accept this? Or is this a bad example - perhaps rebellions in Sri Lanka or Chiapas or the Kirin part of Burma or Chechnya or Iraq or Pakistan? Simply put, if you approve Sherman's measures there, why do you not approve similar measures elsewhere? What is our limit on Acceptable War vs. Total War, especially as regards civilians and property (and you can't disregard starvation as the result of destruction).

Third, the North helped create slavery in the US - as I noted, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize/encode slavery. I'm not aware that most Northerners understand how much slavery they were involved in, and just because it didn't take off there like it did in the South for economic/agricultural reasons doesn't give much room for moral superiority (kind of like Mark Twain taking back his stolen watermelon when a pang hit him - so he could get a ripe one instead).  More on Northern slavery here.  It's a bit telling that the Wikipedia entry on Slavery in the Colonies doesn't even mention Northern states. Yes, some people realize, but a vast portion don't.

Fourth, even on my thread the idea that States cannot secede runs rampant, and it's still a hard-coded belief for many. Oleeb (I believe) quotes Grant talking about how if the Union wasn't permanent in 1783, it was made permanent by land-grabs in Florida and Mexico, by the war in Texas, by money spent for Louisiana, and somehow by the trust of later States that earlier States would stay in. Sounds like a great Ponzi/pyramid scheme (fitting for Grant's feeble & corrupt presidency), which of course ignores the wishes of the Founding Fathers for a great deal of States Rights, and the concept that all of those concerns were gradually washed away by time and mutually shared energies without anyone saying boo about a new compact to replace the old one - till death do we part - is quite curious. I note the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, that government's power comes from the consent of the governed (here especially the States), and that it notes when that no longer is satisfactory, it is the right and duty of the governed to change it. I don't see a time-clock there, a 40-year-rule or warranty after which all rights to return damaged merchandise are voided. I may think that GOP wingnuts are silly about asking to secede over a budget deficit or a perceived socialist leader, but if a State can muster the votes to secede, sure, see ya, bye-bye. The Declaration of Independence addresses this, that "Prudence" will make it likely that people won't lightly break up a long-lasting arrangement for a temporal issue, but even so, so long, it's been real. The Founding Fathers couldn't be clearer, whatever the revisionist thinking. And it's well established that Lincoln's big concern was preserving the Union at all costs, not obliterating slavery.

Fifth, if you do approve of Lincoln's the-Republic-must-stand, please specify why you don't approve of Milosevic's the-Republic-must-stand, created under similar agreement of Balkan States. Try it both ways, if you think the issue of slavery made it imperative for the South but not for Milosevic, or if you think it was only the principle of a Contract once signed shall not be voided. What was the big principle for which Slovenia seceded? "We'd rather ski as part of the European Union". Okay, more complicated than that - changes in Yugoslavian politics meant that Serbia (the North?) would take a more dominant position, unacceptable to many of the other States. It wasn't that Milosevic had committed any atrocities at that point - it was that through Constitutional wrangling and political hardball, he'd given Serbia upper hand. So for those Unionists-at-all-costs, there was no big ground for the other Republics to secede, just because they didn't like the results of one or two elections. And for those "bring in the military" types, Milosevic's military actions to stop the secessions must be justified. Now we can wrangle over the details - would he have been justified in torching 20% of Bosnia's land but not killing civilians as Sherman did, or would collateral civilian be acceptable as in the hundreds of thousands (millions?) dying from our Agent Orange and carpet bombing in Vietnam? Or shall we say, "Don't confuse me with facts, I want to talk about abstract principles"?

Sixth - Algeria was an integral part of France for over 100 years, with Europeans there given full French citizenship. Not by Algeria's choice, but then which parts of France actually chose to be in France? Alsace-Lorraine has played hot potato several times between France and Germany, the southwest regions of Bordeaux and Gascony were for a significant time British. Considering the Colonists understanding of the horrors of European Wars and shifting tides of European nations/territories, it would be astounding if they were to write a Constitution that would assume a permanent, inviolate Republic. These people had grievances on their minds, and they weren't jumping from one frying pan into another, especially if an issue such as slavery was so heated they couldn't even get it settled without a 3/5th rule and a 20-year delay on implementation. "Yeah, we're fighting like cats and dogs now, but we'll assume in 40 years we'll have utopia with no need to worry about these spats." Sure, not likely.

Seventh, back to the Founding Fathers, many in the South in principle abhorred slavery, but frequently for practical reasons could not disown it, as suggested here. The South was built from land, the North was built from commerce and industry, and that split got worse after 1793. Nevertheless, the record shows that many Southerners prior to 1776 attempted to stop or limit the practice of slavery, including the observation of the practice in the Caribbean, that "slavery begets slavery", but England prevented a reduction. The issue of slavery persisted, and as the South's livelihood and land became more and more bound to it, the issue could no longer be separated from the threat to its existence. In a way, it's similar to the Opium addiction the English left the Chinese with in the 1800's.

Eighth, I also pointed out Hofstader's article on white indentured servitude/slavery in the New World, an occurrence that would likely make many whites accept slavery because they'd been through it themselves, and the end of which prompted a need for a replacement system, which was ripe for adopting the English slavery in vogue elsewhere. While the American numbers for slavery by the mid-1800's were horrid, US slavery was still only 1/10th of the slavery in the Americas, a startling detail that I don't think most are aware of, just as the slavery (not just extermination) of indigenous peoples of America is often forgotten.  Slavery didn't end in Brazil until 1888, though importation from Africa had started to decline 10 years earlier.

Ninth, the 3/5th rule is often used to illustrate the South's inhumanity vis-a-vis slavery, though it's a bit similar to Clinton's "definition of is is" - it was response to someone else's construction. In this case, the North came up with the weird equation to keep the South from having more votes due to slave population. This skirted the real issue of why a slave could count as a vote when not allowed to vote, though as far as I know the same peculiar attitude existed for women and children - they were simply part of the man's household. The case for women wouldn't be settled until 1920, and 18-20 year-olds finally got the vote in 1971. AFAIK, the rights of Indians weren't much discussed.

Tenth, as for events after the Civil War, that requires a whole different analysis, because you can't dismiss the effects of that war in modifying and hardening positions, in destroying the economy, perverting their feelings, etc. It's much easier to discuss who these people were and their concepts and morals and consciences before the conflagration.

Finally, this subject is not to "excuse" slavery, but to contextualize it, something severely lacking.

"To contextualize is not to excuse," says Rutgers University historian Jan Lewis. "It's to show the complexity." Understanding the early leaders' severe lapse in judgment over slavery, say Lewis and other historians, makes their ability to found a new and democratic nation all the more incredible.

The Founding Fathers hoped slavery would slip away eventually, much as the politicians and engineers hoped the levees around New Orleans would hold a few decades more. Foolish optimism, and neither saw their Category 5 hurricane, in the South's case the cotton gin that sealed their success and their devil's bargain. Nevertheless, the North in victory, much like the Bush Administration post-9/11 and post-Katrina, has rewritten its part in the catastrophe to blame everything on others, to disavow any role, that all its political intentions were pure. The facts remain - Massachusetts was the first to legalize slavery, and a number Northern states quickly followed. (Pennsylvania had the good taste to ban it, and then unfortunately legalized it 12 years later). Recently reformed sinners often carry less weight in argument than those who held to principle from the beginning, but in the 1700's, few around the world were without sin. Judging from our land theft, wars and ethnic cleansings of the first half of the 19th Century, it's easy to see we weren't so spotless then either. As Prince would say, just a Sign o' the Times.

Hopefully all this verbiage will help people understand the South - and the North - a bit better.

Addendum: Oleeb and others contend that there was no right of secession, but three states - New York, Rhode Island and Virginia - explicitly included secession rights in their acceptance of the Constitution, and as that link notes, secession had been discussed by many states over various issues long before the Civil War. Secession was an assumed right by states, but those 3 wanted to make it crystal clear. Unfortunately, despite all the obvious signals and written statements at the time, 2 centuries later it's still being debated.

Sample Signing Statement of Ratification (note the reference "derived from the people" as denoted in the Declaration of Independence, and like the "all powers not explicitly granted" clause of the Constitution denotes that any power granted "may be resumed", and that "every power not granted thereby remains":

...the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

If the members of the Union did not agree that this ratification and specifically this written clarification of the terms of ratification fit with what was written in the Constitution, that ratification should have been rejected at the time. Three of 13 new states asserting this is extremely strong prima facie evidence. Before someone argues that "if it's not written in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist", Supreme Courts have been arguing ever since ratification about the specific interpretations of various terms of the Constitution and its Amendments, without most of these validations of intent being further added into the Constitution in more explicit, verbose language. If I sign a contract with a German company to be adjudicated under the laws in Atlanta, Georgia, and I qualify my signing by explicitly writing in my acceptance, "this is to ensure that under disagreement, I will not have to travel to a German court in Germany", the contract does not have to be rewritten as long as all the parties accept that that's a valid interpretation. If they disagree and do not voice their disagreement, then they have not co-signed in good faith and the contract is likely either null and void or will be interpreted as expressed in my signing statement.

Addendum 2: It would seem odd that anyone in 2009 could regard land claims, permanent borders and other attempts as eternal national and geographical truths as anything but wishful thinking. Poland shifted 100 miles to the west after WWII. Israel/Palestine is still renegotiating land partitions for the last 60 years, Britain arbitrarily plucked Kuwait out of Iraq 90 years ago, while the rest of the Middle East's borders were hurriedly scratched in, Holland perversely tossed Irian Jaya to the budding independent Indonesia 50 years ago, Yugoslavia dissolved messily over the last decade, Czechoslovakia split amicably, the Soviet Union broke up with territory arguments continuing in the Caucusus, Scotland got governmental powers devolved from Britain, Belgium continues to go through ethnic/Constitutional crisis, China keeps its claws on Xinjiang and Tibet, regained Hong Kong properly after 100 years, and now has its sights on Taiwan (which has gone between independence, Japanese and Chinese ownership over the years). We plucked Panama out of Colombia so we could build a canal, Bolivia and Ethiopia have had their wars trying to get some seafront, and so on. The US had the luxury of ethnic cleansing to make sure no serious claims against stolen property would occur later, and some of the land gains were more or less on the up-and-up serious real estate deals (Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase especially) versus our thefts elsewhere. Bolstering the premise of our inviolate Union because we stole a lot more land later is kind of a thieves' bargain - one gets caught, we all get caught - more than a legal premise.  Most troubling is if we try to carry some principle out of this to other nations composed by agreement - Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. Should Spain accuse Catalonia of high treason because it's pushed for and gained greater independence? Should the United Kingdom punish Scotland rather than acquiesce to its wishes? At a time when the world is evolving better and friendlier solutions to altercations, we have people still basking in the primitive urge to violence to settle all complaints. I guess that seemed like the easier solution, as long as someone else's land and culture was destroyed. Russia would likely agree, Iraq perhaps not. Though seems like Russia became a bit testy when terrorists/freedom-fighters started sticking it to *Russian* territory. Can give but can't take, it seems.

Addendum 3: As I stated above, Brazil gave up slavery in 1888, even though it was still rapidly increasing it after the Civil War. In practical terms, we saved perhaps 15-25 years of slavery by carrying out the bloody Civil War, and got to deal with its repercussions instead. Europe had already moved on before the war, the North had already moved on, and it was simply a matter of time. In the 90's Clinton isolated Milosevic and he was gone in 10 years. In 2003 Bush decided to own Hussein, and instead we own Iraq. Wars have consequences. Violence is often a choice, not a necessity.

Addendum 4: Should have put in  a reference to Jade's post to make it easy to hop back and forth. Here it is, for posterity now that this is a dead thread. But Quinn's long mesmerizing synopsis should live on - summarized by "What if the United States has become the Old South". New Empire, Old South. Brilliant.