> Yes. Perhaps if the chief cause of secession were taxation or political oppression, more nuance could be tolerated (?!) regarding the South. So you're willin

> Yes. Perhaps if the chief cause of secession were taxation or political oppression, more nuance could be tolerated (?!) regarding the South. So you're willing to forgive and largely ignore the role of slavery in a revolution "with" slavery, but you're not willing to do so in a secession "for" slavery? I can't help but notice that this line of reasoning applies more moral weight to the mindset of a few political leaders than it does to the enslavement of millions. Could it be that this is more of a rationalization of the contradiction between two of your priors (union founders good, confederate founders evil) than a true statement of principle? >This standard, of course, by which imperialist aggression is justified by the moral failings of the conquered people, is itself considered to be evil in every other case >No. I'm not sure that Jan 6 is a useful comparison. Consider the Vietnam war instead. When discussing Vietnam, would I be within my rights to declare the Vietnamese evil and undeserving of a fair hearing in the court of history, their point of view dismissed as intolerable nuance, simply because we consider totalitarian communism to be an abject evil? Of course not! If anyone made such an argument, you would immediately be suspicious of their motives. You would be suspicious because you understand that, though totalitarian communism was a great evil, a good-faith understanding of the history requires that we, at a minimum, hear the Vietnamese side of things, consider the full range of their motivations and have the good grace to question our own. All Southerners want with regards to the history of the war is the same good-faith and courtesy that's afforded to the Vietnamese, but apparently that's too much to ask.