The difference between a book and a statue

[Antisthenes]

But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye.

No, they started out as colonies. Colonies who voluntarily entered a union of a new nation, and then later voluntarily left that union to form their own nation. Yes, they repudiated their statehood in that union, in favor of forming their own union. At the time, there was nothing illegal about that, no more illegal than a colony declaring itself independent of the British Crown. Of course they had that right - that's how the US was formed to begin with! Or are you asserting that the colonials were treasonous seditionists as well, and that the US is in fact an illegal and invalid nation?

Virginia, and 3 other Confederate states, did not secede until two days after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75,000 troops to prosecute his war. Their hand was forced into it.

The logical extension of your argument is that the UK can reclaim the US at any time, because we are an illegal nation of treasonous seditionists.


.

I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them.