Article by Article comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions

[Banquo's Ghost]

The key word is 'mercenaries'. To be paid to fight is different from the fight for home and hearth.

But that's not what you wrote initially (my emphasis):

Every man in history has fought for his home, despite any misgivings he had about their policy.

And I think you would have found very, very few armies larger than three men and a leprous goat if the soldiers therein didn't get paid to fight. Especially those lovely imperial armies that fought to deprive someone else of their home in the name of greater patriotism - or whatever.

Lee could have changed the Confederacy because he was the saviour of the Confederacy. He had a strong voter block (war-veterans and the populace), and the slave-holding aristocracy was small. If he wanted to, he could have killed all the plantation owners, and freed the slaves.

You're kidding me, right? General Lee could have gone around butchering the land-owners?

Are the Spartans ever critizied for their Loyalty to Sparta, and devotion to Duty? They had helots, and not like the south, but nearly twice their population. Yet they are still admired for their last ditch defenses of thier forces!

Actually, yes, they are often criticised. The Athenians started with the criticism and it has hardly let up since. The Spartans were amongst the nastiest military autocracies in history, right up there with other war criminals. Admiring them for their occasional bravery (as brainwashed into them as dying stupidly for 'The Emperor' was to the soldiery of Japan in the last century) does not endorse their evil - considered so even in their own time.

I note again that loyalty and duty without moral judgment creates an inhuman soldier. The defence that 'I was only following orders' has long been disallowed, and rightly so.