I'm happy to be able to agree with you, by & large, but be careful here: You can't accuse Confederates of treason unless you acknowledge they were at all times Americans, operating in rebellion against their lawfully designated government. That was Lincoln's operative theory throughout the war—that it was not against a foreign entity (the Confederacy) or even against the states, but against people, Americans, within those states rebelling.

I think one of the key problems with so-called "Southern Pride" is that the American War of Independence differed hardly at all from the Civil War. Both were wars of secession constituted against legally-designated governments. Granted, colonists had no representation in Parliament. But we can start to see why the Confederacy hung on as long as it did. The Continental Army won relatively few victories, but as long as they were able to keep the field they made pursuing the war too expensive for Britain. Some anti-racist authors have, in fact, linked the colonists' desire for war to the fear that Whitehall intended to eliminate slavery in the near future (& also, of course, the Crown's desire to prevent settlements east of the Alleghenies in keeping with treaties to Indian allies from the French & Indian Wars).

Finally, what's really disturbing is the growing tendency of anti-racist authors to join Lost-Cause aficionados in critiquing Lincoln. The latter, of course, seek to demonstrate that Lincoln's War of Aggression had nothing to do with slavery. They point to Lincoln's comments about maintaining slavery to save the Union, or his desire to colonize free blacks to prove he was no friend of the slave or free black. One anti-racist writer on Medium has gone so far to suggest that w/o John Wilkes Booth there would be no black people in today's US.

It is, at best, a disturbing confluence.