United States Confederate Statues, symbols, and memorials debate thread

[Deleted member 1]

The Zulus weren't in any sense fundamentally contrary to the spirit and culture of the United Kingdom (and in fact the contrary was true--if you suggested that the Zulus ought to erect statues to the British I'm sure they would laugh at you) as the Confederates were to America. Likewise the notion that we should erect a monument for an outright traitor like Arnold strikes me as rather odd--what right does he have to commemoration in the first place? Hundreds of millions of Americans have lived throughout history and most of them have managed to get through life without fundamentally threatening the existence of the United States--why should we build a statue for him and not any of them?

I think it's interesting to say that half of the founders and framers shared a fundamentally different culture and ideology--since after all the Confederacy was just an expression of the southern half of the 13 Colonies in the main.

As for Arnold, I was just observing that really, Champlain was absolutely fundamental to our having any chances of survival as a nation at all. I am reminded of King Edward's comment on the Victoria's Cross: "A man having won this should be able to wear it on the gallows, if condemned." I would hang Arnold, but had it existed, I would also give him the CMOH for Lake Champlain -- and he would be welcome to wear it on the gallows.

 

[OliverCromwell]

I think it's interesting to say that half of the founders and framers shared a fundamentally different culture and ideology--since after all the Confederacy was just an expression of the southern half of the 13 Colonies in the main.

As for Arnold, I was just observing that really, Champlain was absolutely fundamental to our having any chances of survival as a nation at all. I am reminded of King Edward's comment on the Victoria's Cross: "A man having won this should be able to wear it on the gallows, if condemned." I would hang Arnold, but had it existed, I would also give him the CMOH for Lake Champlain -- and he would be welcome to wear it on the gallows.

Certainly, I admit that it’s a bold statement, but I would argue that it’s true. At the time of America’s founding state cultures were still rather separate, but even at that point I think one can clearly say that a distinct “northern” and “southern” culture already existed—there is a reason why, for instance, the founders felt compelled to move the capital from Philidelphia, the birthplace of the Revolution, to a swamp on the Potomac just to be between north and south. These two cultures were confederated by quick of geography—they happened to share a continent and thus share the oppression of the British—but I would not say that they had much more to do with eachother than any other pair of British descendants, say, the north and Britain itself.

The antebellum South—and its modern remnants—has been America’s personal national serpent for almost all of our history, whispering sweep temptations into our ear responsible for the vast majority of America’s worst moral atrocities. That we tolerated slavery at all was because the South brought to the United States in their endless search for subjugation. That we expelled the Five Civilized Tribes was because of the South. That our culture of commerce has become ruthlessly extractive and inequitable and focused on short term profit, which in turn has contributed to the rise of socialism against it, is in large part due to the influence of the South, which had little of the cultural commitment to charity that the North did as befits its founding as a cynical profitmaking venture, and which despises regulation or intervention that is good and promotes regulation or intervention that is bad. That religion has lost credibility in America has much to do with the South, whose sham religions like Southern Baptism or Pentecostalism or so forth have indelibly marked the reputation of the Christian faith throughout the rest of America. So much of what is bad about the United States, and so little of what is good about it, is directly attributable to the antebellum South or its modern day remnants, still the descendants of the repulsive planter elites. I see no reason why we should extend them any measure of charity.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Of course it's spiteful--that's rather the point, isn't it? Why should the victor be expected to afford the defeated pride and dignity? Why should the remnants of the old South which have so firmly rejected so many of our attempts to civilize and develop them--attempts which have allowed the rest of the South, the new urban centers like Atlanta and what not, to enrich themselves greatly and reach an economic and cultural standing comparable to the rest of the country--be afforded anything other than spite?

Because doing that kind of shit tends to engender resentment and start another war? Like, for a guy who's putting on airs about superior education and knowledge of the field, you seem shockingly ignorant of the fact that people have tried it your way on many an occasion, and we stopped doing it because it's a bad fucking idea. Your course of action would have just lead to another civil war when the south stopped putting up with the attitude you suggest... holy shit, you are doing the "The South Shall Rise Again" thing!

I would think that my post answered this pretty well already--they celebrate the CSA simply because they stand. By standing, they tell future generations that there were Confederates worth remembering, Confederates whose faces and names and legacies ought to be preserved by future generations. That, in of itself, is a celebration.

Given that civilized countries like the one you seem to believe the North was are not in the habit of unpersoning even the most vile, evil people, that sounds rather dubious. We remember and presever the name and face of, say, John Wayne Gayce, does that mean we celebrate him?

George Thomas deserves statues for his exceptional valor and generalship, and also for his moral courage in resisting the temptation of treason that so many of his peers fell to. Union soldiers also deserve statues, likewise for their valor and sacrifice. Lee and the Confederate soldiers on the other had, do not deserve statues--they were traitors, enemies, of the United States, and savage barbarians of a repulsive, verminous culture whose existence in of itself defiled the face of the world and of the United States, and should only ever be remembered as such.

That's funny, because as I noted the people who had those savage barbiarians kill and maim their freinds and comrades did not think ill of them the way you do, and if anyone had the right to it was them. I don't see where you get off taking such offense.

That's good! As I've said before, it is heartening to see that so much of the modern South is not like the old one that we fought, and that our efforts to civilize and develop the region have indeed born some fruit, as uneven and incomplete and feckless as it was, to the point where many of the people of the South are so happy to celebrate their liberators!

......You can't be serious.

Why does anyone have a right to commemorate the ancient loved ones of their ancestors of those ancestors were by their very nature and existence as well as their treasonous action antiethical to the spirit of the United States?

You are aware that many of these statues were put up within the living memory of the war, Mr "I've done reading on the culture and history of the time", right? Your parents, children, friends, etc are not "ancient ancestors".

If Osama bin Laden's grandchildren lived in the US and wished to erect a shrine to him in public space, should we allow them to?

I'm not responding to your disingenuous hypothetical. Discuss the actual point in contention, be it directly or via examples of things that actually happened in reality.

Have you ever read any examinations of the culture of the original colonies?

I don't see how your rambling demonization of the entire south (based entirely on your wild guess that it did not change at in a couple hundred years) in any way relates to the topic at hand, or justifies your abhorrent stances.

I don't have a constitutional right to not see ugly things certainly, but as a citizen of the country I certainly do have a right to have a say in what statues and monuments my government chooses to put up in public space. Public space is maintained by public money--my own tax dollars. I, and all the other citizens of the country, have every right to not want to see an obscenity that offends our sensibilities put up there.

Prove it, let's see some case law establishing the right to not be offended.

 

[OliverCromwell]

@Battlegrinder I’m genuinely curious—what positive qualities do you identify as being possessed by the antebellum south, if you disagree with my assessment of it as almost uniformly bad in nature?

 

[Battlegrinder]

@Battlegrinder I’m genuinely curious—what positive qualities do you identify as being possessed by the antebellum south, if you disagree with my assessment of it as almost uniformly bad in nature?

It doesn't matter, even if they were the worst people ever (instead of just being notably more racist than the rest of the world), that doesn't justify your overt hatred and contemptuous "what right do you have to not be spat upon and ground into the dirt beneath our heel" attitude.

 

[OliverCromwell]

It doesn't matter, even if they were the worst people ever (instead of just being notably more racist than the rest of the world), that doesn't justify your overt hatred and contemptuous "what right do you have to not be spat upon and ground into the dirt beneath our heel" attitude.

What right does any culture have to be exalted simply because it exists? If we cannot say that some cultures have superior qualities and others inferior ones, then what will have become of conservatism? How can we say that, say, the modern culture of oversensitivity among the American left or the culture of antisemitism and hatred of women in the Islamic world is bad if we cannot acknowledge that some cultures have inferior qualities?

I do not in any sense “hate” the South—rather, I recognize that the antebellum South was a savage, inferior culture, and thus I celebrate the attempts of my ancestors to civilize this culture and correct its negative qualities. If I cannot be proud of that, if I cannot celebrate superior cultures over inferior ones, if I cannot decry others’ attempts to degenerate the great civilizing deeds that my ancestors did, then what has become of conservatism?

 

[Battlegrinder]

What right does any culture have to be exalted simply because it exists? If we cannot say that some cultures have superior qualities and others inferior ones, then what will have become of conservatism? How can we say that, say, the modern culture of oversensitivity among the American left or the culture of antisemitism and hatred of women in the Islamic world is bad if we cannot acknowledge that some cultures have inferior qualities?

I do not in any sense “hate” the South—rather, I recognize that the antebellum South was a savage, inferior culture, and thus I celebrate the attempts of my ancestors to civilize this culture and correct its negative qualities. If I cannot be proud of that, if I cannot celebrate superior cultures over inferior ones, if I cannot decry others’ attempts to degenerate the great civilizing deeds that my ancestors did, then what has become of conservatism?

There is a vast differance between evaluating two cultures and noting the strengths and weakness of one group vs the other and using that information to inform your decisions and actions, and appointing yourself some kind of culture judge and weighting the worth of some cultures vs others and deeming them inferior. And there is yet another vast gulf between noting down flaws, and the sneering, hateful contempt you have consistently displayed here.

 

[OliverCromwell]

There is a vast differance between evaluating two cultures and noting the strengths and weakness of one group vs the other and using that information to inform your decisions and actions, and appointing yourself some kind of culture judge and weighting the worth of some cultures vs others and deeming them inferior. And there is yet another vast gulf between noting down flaws, and the sneering, hateful contempt you have consistently displayed here.

What difference is there, exactly? I evaluate the cultures of the North and the South and note the many weaknesses of the South—the slavery, the violence, the indolence, the hostility to learning, and so forth—and the vastly fewer in comparison weaknesses of the North. In doing so I come to the conclusion that the North’s liberation of the South is something that ought to the celebrated, because the North’s presense in the region has allowed it to uplift the South and rid the region of many of the weaknesses it used to have and thus was a moral and heroic act. From there, I conclude that we should celebrate that heroism with monuments, and we likewise should decry those who fought against that heroism to preserve the South’s weak, immoral qualities. What, exactly, here is wrong?

Likewise, what contempt have I displayed, beyond identifying the weaknesses of the south—slavery, despotism, indolence, violence, ignorance, arrogance, and so forth—as what they are, qualities of an uncivilized, savage culture? I have no contempt for the South, I’m merely willing to identify its culture as what it was. Are you getting triggered by me pointing out historical facts?

How can we possibly say, for instance, that our intervention into Iraq was justified if we cannot acknowledge the weaknesses and inferiorities of Iraq’s culture in the form of subjugation of women, etc., which our nationbuilding attempts tried (albeit in many ways unsuccessfully) to correct? How can we say that oversensitive liberals are harmful to our culture and need to be stopped if we cannot identify our own culture as superior and preferable, and celebrate its victory over liberal whining?

 

[Deleted member 1]

@OliverCromwell , I actually believe in what you're saying, in the sense that I deplore the southern-oriented folk Christianity as being next to atheism, though I am hesitant to abandon all of southern culture--their cuisine for example is profoundly influenced by indigenous America and that shows that there was a culture interplay at a profound level despite the genocides. I also accept that your arguments about a nation, founded in honour, tolerating the glory of treasons as being unacceptable.

And yet, I see the destruction of any part of the historical record as being such a grave matter that I came to oppose taking the statues down anyway. I just really feel that it is a very dangerous road to walk to declare that you have that power to remove history. We have seen that presumption be used for great evil in the past, you are an educated man, you must know that.

 

[Big Steve]

It's why I suggested that we simply make sure that the monuments' attrached plaques reflect historical reality, not the agendas of those who erected them.

 

[Deleted member 1]

It's why I suggested that we simply make sure that the monuments' attrached plaques reflect historical reality, not the agendas of those who erected them.

That would be reasonable.

 

[S'task]

"condescension" is a word that literally originates from the way Virginians would treat people they perceived as their lessers)

No it doesn't. It appears in the 1640s, which likely means it started to be use predominately in the 1630s (as historically there's a lapse in English usage between being a common spoken word and common written one). In the 1630s and 1640s Virginia was nowhere near being arranged along the lines of the planter aristocracy that it later developed; it was, in fact, still struggling to even BE an established colony, being tied up in a bunch of Indian Wars and struggling to maintain a good population. The first families of Virginia, which formed the core of the later planter aristocracy, didn't start immigrating until the 1640s proper, and did not become firmly established as a ruling class until the 1660s, 20 years after the word appeared.

Further, the actual root word here, "condescend" dates back to the mid-14th century, over 100 years before the European discovery of America in the late 15th century. This strongly puts into question any origination association with the Virginia colony.

Maybe it fits into your preconceived notions and that's why you accepted it so readily, but always ALWAYS doubt etymologies that fit some ideological story. The majority of time they are not true. Further, never trust a source that repeats such things, as the etymology of the English language is one of the most expansively studied and easily researched topics in academia, and any author pushing such a story is likely also falsifying other "facts" they are telling you.

 

[S'task]

Going to go on a general rant here because, well, things are getting close to outright defamation of the Old Dominion here, and I think folks are much to quick to condemn and demonize while forgetting things that Southerners ACTUALLY did contribute.

For instance, despite this so called "evil" Virginia plantation culture, almost ALL the core concepts of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, originated with those VERY PLANTERS and was pushed for by many predominate Virginians as they tended to be part of the Anti-Federalist factions in the 1780s. The entire Bill of Rights was modeled on the Virginia Declaration of Rights written in 1776 by George Mason (one of the lesser known, but probably more important, Founding Father and Framer) who, yes, was a plantation owner, but one who had decidedly negative feelings on slavery and one who would hardly fit in with OC's caricature of the Virginia planter class.

I would also note that if the Virginia planter class was so toxic culturally and so assured of its own superiority... why in the world to George Washington not seize the chance to be made King? Why did he voluntarily step down after serving two terms as President? These are not the actions of a man from some culture of self serving self superior attitudes.

Further, as I noted above, Virginia was a hotbed of anti-Federalist sentiment, and because it and New York basically tag teamed on the topic (oh, look, the supposed evil southern state agreeing with a noble Northern state! It's almost like this shit is a lot more complicated and not anywhere near so just so as OC is making it out to be) is why we even HAVE the Bill of Rights, as those amendments were adopted specifically to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists over the expansive powers the US Constitution gave Congress, as the US wouldn't be able to function without either of those two States at the time.

Anyway, the entire argument from Albion's Seed stinks of a "just so" story meant to aggrandize one section of the US while demonizing another. The US Southern culture, while it has decidedly negative aspects, also has significant positive ones too, even in the 18th and 19th centuries. There's a reason historically you saw larger percentages of the volunteer military of the US come from the US South, part of Southern Culture is an emphasis on martial duty from ALL strata of society (after all, the famous southern heroes of the 18th century tended to be both planters AND military men... G. Washington, Harry Lee, Francis Marion, etc.). The emphasis on individual enumerated liberties basically originated in Virginia from Mason and Jefferson, while the idea of a Federal government ruling all with an iron fist pretty much originated from the North with Hamilton and Adams.

So to sit here and pretend that the US South has been nothing but a serpent to the US is nothing short of historical revisionism and sectionalism. It's historically inaccurate, and is nothing more than presenting a "just so" story to justify demeaning a full third of the country.

 

[Big Steve]

I'm starting to get jealous here. I'm supposed to be the "War of Southern Aggression!"-spouting "properly subjugated son of the North" (as I was once called on SB), not Cromwell, dammit. Go shut down a theatre somewhere, you Roundhead prude. (j/k)

The South was never a monolith. That's one thing that must be remembered. The various regions of the South all had their own particular political and social characters drawn from their geography, history, and demographic influences. South Carolina, for instance, founded by West Indies planters with a long coastal border marsh that was seen as deadly to whites, developed an aristocratic system that clung to 18th Century values even as Jacksonian (white male) egalitarianism swept the South. The wide acres of the Mississippi valley's cotton-growing soil attracted a more rugged, entrepreneurial spirit that embraced Jacksonian egalitarianism too, just as the herrenvolk communities of Georgia and Alabama did, where wide networks of family connections bound the wealthiest planters with the poorest of white laborers. The Border South blended the agricultural slave economy with the free labor economy of their northern neighbors, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic, while the Western Border South - Missouri in particular, but also Kentucky - had numerous figures that saw themselves as Unionist and Westerners more than slave-owner Southerners. Hence Kentucky's Henry Clay glorying in his nickname "Harry of the West" while Missouri's own Thomas Hart Benton, despite being a Jacksonian himself, cared little for promoting slavery and often criticized Southern touchineess on the matter. Benton's own proteges would later lead the Republican Party in Missouri (and supporrt Lincoln in 1860 - Lincoln would even taunt Douglas that his supposedly sectional candidacy had more Southern support than Douglas' own candidacy).

Since our Rihannsu philosopher here is defending the honor of the Old Dominion, I'll add that Virginia was herself a microcosm of the South. The Tidewater had Deep South slave population rates and the crustiest aristocrats outside of South Carolina, Piedmont and Valley Virginia (Jefferson was from the Piedmont) were closer to Middle South rates (although Piedmont could approach Deep South), and the trans-Allegheny counties were Border South in their outlook and suspicious of the anti-egalitarian attitudes to their southwest (hence the 1830 and 1850 constitutional revisions in the state). That splintering ultimately led to the counties following the rest of the Border South into the Union camp and becoming West Virginia.

I bring this up (and endure my phone getting slow) because judging the whole South as one lump is not backed by the historical record. More to the point, it ignores the Unionism that penetrated into the Deep South, with thousands of Southerners enlisting in the Union Army. The South was, and still is in some ways, a parochial, region-defined section, with a particular set of cultural mores that were in some cases regrettably influenced by slavery.

(And no, I don't want to coddle the South on slavery either, slavery did embed itself deeply into Southern society and unduly warped their entire economic and political system, introducing toxic loyalty politics and xenophobic fears about outside influences "tricking" slaves and even non-slaveholding poor whites intto rebellion.)

 

[Arch Dornan]

Going to go on a general rant here because, well, things are getting close to outright defamation of the Old Dominion here, and I think folks are much to quick to condemn and demonize while forgetting things that Southerners ACTUALLY did contribute.

For instance, despite this so called "evil" Virginia plantation culture, almost ALL the core concepts of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, originated with those VERY PLANTERS and was pushed for by many predominate Virginians as they tended to be part of the Anti-Federalist factions in the 1780s. The entire Bill of Rights was modeled on the Virginia Declaration of Rights written in 1776 by George Mason (one of the lesser known, but probably more important, Founding Father and Framer) who, yes, was a plantation owner, but one who had decidedly negative feelings on slavery and one who would hardly fit in with OC's caricature of the Virginia planter class.

I would also note that if the Virginia planter class was so toxic culturally and so assured of its own superiority... why in the world to George Washington not seize the chance to be made King? Why did he voluntarily step down after serving two terms as President? These are not the actions of a man from some culture of self serving self superior attitudes.

Further, as I noted above, Virginia was a hotbed of anti-Federalist sentiment, and because it and New York basically tag teamed on the topic (oh, look, the supposed evil southern state agreeing with a noble Northern state! It's almost like this shit is a lot more complicated and not anywhere near so just so as OC is making it out to be) is why we even HAVE the Bill of Rights, as those amendments were adopted specifically to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists over the expansive powers the US Constitution gave Congress, as the US wouldn't be able to function without either of those two States at the time.

Anyway, the entire argument from Albion's Seed stinks of a "just so" story meant to aggrandize one section of the US while demonizing another. The US Southern culture, while it has decidedly negative aspects, also has significant positive ones too, even in the 18th and 19th centuries. There's a reason historically you saw larger percentages of the volunteer military of the US come from the US South, part of Southern Culture is an emphasis on martial duty from ALL strata of society (after all, the famous southern heroes of the 18th century tended to be both planters AND military men... G. Washington, Harry Lee, Francis Marion, etc.). The emphasis on individual enumerated liberties basically originated in Virginia from Mason and Jefferson, while the idea of a Federal government ruling all with an iron fist pretty much originated from the North with Hamilton and Adams.

So to sit here and pretend that the US South has been nothing but a serpent to the US is nothing short of historical revisionism and sectionalism. It's historically inaccurate, and is nothing more than presenting a "just so" story to justify demeaning a full third of the country.

Question about the military. As I understand when the civil war began, there were veterans who having fought together in a previous war (Mexico wasn't it?) Refused positions in the union and so fought for their state and joined the Confederates. Not sure of those that did fought for the union as I'm not sure of that but I suppose it's possible since it's a civil war.

From observation they were more loyal to their state than the US as a whole right?

 

[Big Steve]

Question about the military. As I understand when the civil war began, there were veterans who having fought together in a previous war (Mexico wasn't it?) Refused positions in the union and so fought for their state and joined the Confederates. Not sure of those that did fought for the union as I'm not sure of that but I suppose it's possible since it's a civil war.

From observation they were more loyal to their state than the US as a whole right?

Yes, the Mexican-American War, which was a proving ground to a lot of the eventual generals of the Civil War. And in some cases, officers from Southern states chose to fight for the Confederacy even if they were active duty Union officers due to the direction their state took. Others, particularly David Farragut and George Thomas, did not.

 

[Big Steve]

Also, if I was going to agree to a monument to any Confederate officer, it'd be Patrick Cleburne. He was brave, he was fighting for his neighbors, and he openly promoted freeing slaves to join the Confederate Army and won only ridicule and outrage.

Then that dumbass Hood got him killed at the Battle of Franklin.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Yes, the Mexican-American War, which was a proving ground to a lot of the eventual generals of the Civil War. And in some cases, officers from Southern states chose to fight for the Confederacy even if they were active duty Union officers due to the direction their state took. Others, particularly David Farragut and George Thomas, did not.

Interesting that the idea of being more loyal to where you're born locally to than the nation the place you lived in most of your life belonged to. Living farther back where loyalty is to a city like the Greek city states to one the many Chinese kingdoms or the Japanese clans in their warring states period.

Their ancestors fought to be free of King George and then years later their descendants after a recent war fighting together a secessionist movement happens back in their homeland and they chose their sides. I can imagine someone they fought with once now on opposite sides now about to kill each other or find their body on the other side. Civil wars really bring out the worst in people and test them quite harshly.

 

[S'task]

Interesting that the idea of being more loyal to where you're born locally to than the nation the place you lived in most of your life belonged to. Living farther back where loyalty is to a city like the Greek city states to one the many Chinese kingdoms or the Japanese clans in their warring states period.

Their ancestors fought to be free of King George and then years later their descendants after a recent war fighting together a secessionist movement happens back in their homeland and they chose their sides. I can imagine someone they fought with once now on opposite sides now about to kill each other or find their body on the other side. Civil wars really bring out the worst in people and test them quite harshly.

It may seem odd now, but bear in mind prior to the US Civil War the primary way many citizens looked at the United States was more like how many Europeans see the EU. The United States wasn't a nation, rather, it was collection of small nations to present a united front to the outside world. The common linguistic terminology to refer to the name of this organization was "these United States of America", not "the United States of America".

As such, many people, not just in the South, saw their citizenship as being first to their State rather than to the Federal government. In many respects it WAS the Civil War itself that created the idea of the United States as a formal nation-state and prior to its events these United States were not actually a true nation.

This is one of the reasons I have issue with calling many of the Southerners "traitors". They were organizing and acting under a very different framework of what the idea of the United States were (and again, this was a conception that was not just held by the South). Think of it in the terms of the EU and Brexit. Is Boris Johnson a traitor to the EU? Are the millions of people who voted for Brexit traitors to the European Ideal? Granted, the US in the first half of the 19th century the US was a much stronger (and more representative) union than the present EU is, but still, the entire organization of the country and the Constitution is premised on the STATES being the Sovereign entities involved, not the Federal government. The Civil War arguably shifted Sovereignty away from the States to the Federal government, but prior to it, it was the States that were legally and metaphorically Sovereign.

 

[Arch Dornan]

It may seem odd now, but bear in mind prior to the US Civil War the primary way many citizens looked at the United States was more like how many Europeans see the EU. The United States wasn't a nation, rather, it was collection of small nations to present a united front to the outside world. The common linguistic terminology to refer to the name of this organization was "these United States of America", not "the United States of America".

As such, many people, not just in the South, saw their citizenship as being first to their State rather than to the Federal government. In many respects it WAS the Civil War itself that created the idea of the United States as a formal nation-state and prior to its events these United States were not actually a true nation.

This is one of the reasons I have issue with calling many of the Southerners "traitors". They were organizing and acting under a very different framework of what the idea of the United States were (and again, this was a conception that was not just held by the South). Think of it in the terms of the EU and Brexit. Is Boris Johnson a traitor to the EU? Are the millions of people who voted for Brexit traitors to the European Ideal? Granted, the US in the first half of the 19th century the US was a much stronger (and more representative) union than the present EU is, but still, the entire organization of the country and the Constitution is premised on the STATES being the Sovereign entities involved, not the Federal government. The Civil War arguably shifted Sovereignty away from the States to the Federal government, but prior to it, it was the States that were legally and metaphorically Sovereign.

I wouldn't say it's odd. I just wasn't born under their circumstances to feel that way.

Didn't think of it that way on Brexit but it's a lot of food for thought. History is still being decided on what the UK wants to be and it's going to be rocky.

That word traitor. I suppose legally you can use the word to refer to either side in a civil war. I feel secessionist/separatist fits better or rebel to me.