[DoreenMichele]

The initial founding of the US created an extremely weak federal government. The states were supposed to be independent nations with sovereignty within their own borders and an agreement to cooperate in raising an army collectively for purposes of defense.

The exact form of organization initially chosen had a history of failing and it gave the federal government no means to fund an army, therefore no meaningful means to raise an army. So that was soon abandoned and the agreement was updated.

No, it's not crazy talk for the Southern states to believe they had self determination that the Northern states had no right to interfere with. That was the original arrangement agreed upon by the various states -- state typically meaning independent nation and not "some layer of organization above municipal and county but below nation."

Over time, our conceptualization of the organization of the US has changed. Originally, the states were conceived of as separate nations allied for one purpose: The ability to adequately defend themselves to preserve their independence.

[russellbeattie]

> That was the original arrangement...

Besides the fact that this would only apply to 4 of the 11 confederate states, they were all part of the country as the relationship between state and federal government changed, or had agreed to join it as it was.

In fact most of the first 15 presidents were from the South. Virginia specifically had the most presidents and the largest representation in the House because of the 3/5ths compromise, as well as Southerners controlling the Supreme Court (remember Frederick Douglas) and half the Senate. The South was fine with the federal system until they were going to lose slavery. If they had the votes, they would have been quite happy to force the North to accept slavery (and they tried). When they were outvoted, instead of respecting the democracy that they helped create, the South rebelled to preserve slavery. Any other version is a distortion.

None of this of course will affect southerners opinions and alternative facts, I'm sure.

[selecsosi]

Thank you for doing the often uncomfortable act of reminding people of the historical facts and record vs. revisionist subjectivists. There is plenty of historical record and primary sources to back your line of discussion here.

You're addressing the shame and internal conflict of someone who "believes" they are a "good" person, but have met reasonable evidence to show otherwise, and instead of address the conflict, they would prefer to retreat into denial (not unlike Southern Revisionists!)

[dang]

Please don't cross into personal attack. The tiny little snippets of text that are HN comments aren't nearly enough to evaluate what kind of person someone is—not by a long shot.

Meanwhile the online callout/shaming culture makes a habit of putting the nastiest spin on what other people post. That's exactly what we're trying to avoid here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

[DoreenMichele]

You're addressing the shame and internal conflict of someone who "believes" they are a "good" person, but have met reasonable evidence to show otherwise, and instead of address the conflict, they would prefer to retreat into denial (not unlike Southern Revisionists!)

This is an unwarranted and rather ugly personal attack. I have neither shame nor internal conflict on this topic. My ancestors were not slave owners.

I was born and raised in the South, but my father and mother were both from elsewhere.

I didn't bother to reply to the comment you are praising because it also contains ugly personal attacks, which are in violation of HN guidelines and responding to such is not typically a good means to foster the kinds of discussion HN is intended for.

I stand by my original comment that my understanding is that Grant's compassion in how he handled terms of surrender is likely a large part of why the US has only had one civil war.

I regret replying to the seemingly angry response someone left about broader topics than just Grant. I'm taken aback at how ugly the replies are here. It's not what I have come to expect on HN even though I post as openly female and that's got a long history of being stupid levels of drama at times.