You still don't seem to have read anything more than the tin. Go back and read the whole opening post and see if your "answer" answered any of my specific questions.
Stop being snippy. I already apologized for offending you.
I read the whole post. Instead of assuming that my answer comes from bad motives or a desire to put you down, instead consider that
I think that my answer answered those questions, or at least the ones I thought were important. Instead of calling me names, ask a constructive question, such as "can you elaborate?" Instead of criticizing me for answering the question in your title and not all the questions in the post, maybe reformulate your title so that it gives me a better impression of the subject matter you think is most important, instead of burying the lede.
So: the South already thought of itself as the true successor to the framers. Just as schismatic religions think of themselves as the true interpreters of God's plan, the Confederates thought of themselves as the true interpreters of the wishes of the framers, who, by that time, were already considered holy figures in America's civic religion. There would be no reason for this to change, as is evidenced by the extensive invoking of the framers and the Constitution and the use of these personages as permanent symbolic totems, one example of which if the Seal of the Confederacy.
Could Washington's birthday be a Confederate holiday? Of course it could. He was already extensively venerated, and the birthdays of venerated figures are often celebrated as holidays.
As far as the other questions, they are either very broad, such as as "how would national history develop?" or are presented as what I consider to be false dichotomies. Examples of these would be "are Washington through Buchanan 'canon' [or] does national history begin in 1860." The answer is yes to both.
