As you might guess from my avatar, I am a bit of a Confederate sympathizer. Oh, I'm a proper Galvanized Yankee now, a loyal American, and in no way a neo-confederate, but I mean sympathizer in the sense of that time in history. But I can't quite get on board with my fellow Confederate sympathizers endlessly and enthusiastically arguing that secession was legal and constitutional at that time. If it was, that's fine. But if it wasn't isn't that fine too? I see secession as a rebellion, or revolution if you prefer that term. And rebellions and revolutions are illegal. They may or may not be needed, justified, ethical, important, necessary, etc., but they are illegal. The one a century earlier against King George was about as illegal as illegal can get according to the law at that time, and in a couple weeks we are going to celebrate the illegal actions we took. I think it's a little bit revisionist and Lost Causeresque to hang your Confederate sympathies hat on the legal/constitutional peg. When you think you have a point worth dying for you put your gonads on the line and go for it. You wake up and say, "I'm going to go out and rebel today, it's going to be illegal, and if you don't like it you're going to have to stop me. Now bring it." Well, they did. If you are going to secede, you better succeed. I have a hard time getting my mind wrapped around why some with Confederate sympathies think it's important to argue that secession was legal or constitutional. Again, if it was that's fine. But if it wasn't isn't that fine too? And speaking of "bring it" I expect quite a bit will be coming because of this post.