Whatever happened to Christian Exodus?

Here's one report from the liberal American Prospect:

Christian Exodus, which was formed in 2004 (partly inspired by Lawrence v. Texas) and claims to have 1,500 members, hoped to move 50,000 Christians to South Carolina to enact a Christian government that would ban homosexuality and abortion, cease public school funding in favor of parents homeschooling their children, and protect all Christian religious displays in public. Furthermore, though the group claims to support racial equality in its statement of positions, it also seeks to repeal the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed rights to former slaves, and all laws or rulings associated with it (not to mention the group's work with far-right groups such as the neo-Confederate League of the South).

Right. And the October Revolution guaranteed liberty and prosperity to the workers.

Really, now. It continues to amaze me how liberals (including the American Prospect) maintain an otherwise healthy skepticism toward DC's actions, including its wars of "liberation," yet swallow the self-congratulatory, aggrandizing myth of the War Between the States and Reconstruction as a noble crusade to free blacks. When war came, it was clear that it was a war between two economic and political systems, as opposed to the post-war propaganda that it was a great, noble war of liberation. In the real world, nations do not go to war to do good deeds; they go to war for power, land, and treasure.

This, too, was noted at the time hostilities broke out between North and South:

"Lincoln's determination received the hearty applause of powerful northern interests. Eastern manufacturers worried that they would lose Southern markets to European competitors because of the Confederacy's free-trade policy. Yankee merchants and ship builders faced an end to a monopoly on the South's coastal trade that the government granted to US vessels. Holders of government securities were edgy about the Union's loss of tariff revenue." Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, professor of History and Economics, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (1996)

Foreign observers quickly comprehended the real issue the South faced. Charles Dickens, the renowned literary champion of the poor, wrote this scathing indictment of Mr. Lincoln's intentions in an 1861 article: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

The 14th amendment was ballyhooed as a liberating document; in fact, its actual purpose and effect was to reverse the roles of the once-sovereign States and their former agent, the Federal government. That amendment -- which was never legally ratified -- endorsed the military conquest of the Southern States, and through them, all other States in the Union, by granting the Federal government ultimate authority on State actions, something the Founders would never have accepted.

So my analogy to the Bolshevik Revolution and Lincoln's Counter-Revolution stands.