You called my posts massive data dumps that you didn't have time to reply to and that professional historians had addressed their points. According to you, my data-filled posts that you didn't want to respond to were wasting people's time. That is why I posted back that if you were going to complain about posts filled with historical data on a history thread, "Then why are you wasting our time and yours on a history thread and disparaging sourced information posted to the thread?" I didn't tell you to stay off the thread. Isn't history the point of these threads?
The alternative would be to simply ignore what you say. Would that be better?
I post historical information that you can respond to or not. Your choice.
... trying to force a conclusion one way or the other just isn't going to work.
Where am I trying to force a conclusion? I provide historical information that supports my opinion. If you want to provide some historical information that indicates my sources are wrong, please do. I'd appreciate it. If you're too busy or don't have an inclination to research the issue, so be it. Again, it's your choice to respond or not.
Finding dozens of Southern editorials on secession that say that Lincoln's inaugural meant war doesn't really prove anything ...
The only time I posted "dozens of Southern editorials" was in my own thread in 2004, though I've provided a link to that thread maybe four times over the years to posters who probably had not seen it. And besides, I posted both Southern and Northern editorials. I even provided a link to the text of Lincoln's speech. Strictly speaking, the subject wasn't secession. It was the editorials' opinions of Lincoln's first inaugural and what it meant. The editorials showed how very far apart the two sides of the country were. I'd not seen such a collection of editorials anywhere before.
You (at least, I think it was you) suggested a New York Times book to me based on their own articles during the war. I bought that book and later their disk containing the articles they published about the war and related issues during the war. For that, I thank you. I'm open to useful suggestions like that. It is another history source for me. The main problem with their articles on disk is that the text they provided was apparently prepared by optical character recognition, and some of the results had a number of errors when I compared to the actual articles themselves.
Finally, I'm at a loss as to what the upshot of all this is.
To prove that the current government is illegitimate? [rb: No]
To restrict the federal government to the powers it had in 1850? [rb: No]
To break up the country? [rb: No]
To vindicate the Confederacy, a government that certainly wasn't any better than its adversary? [rb: The Confederacy wasn't a perfect government at all, but I think the Confederacy's view of the Constitution was certainly more accurate than Lincoln's. The history I was taught oh so many years ago oversimplified history, IMO. I wanted to research what actually happened myself and post on threads where the history of that period is discussed. I had access in local libraries to great collections of newspapers of the period. What actually went on didn't always make it into the history books.]
To make Lincoln the great villain of American history? [rb: Up until recently, he violated the Constitution more than any other president. And, I believe, and I think the data support my opinion, that Lincoln initiated war because to let the South go with its far lower tariff than the North's recently passed Morrill tariff would ruin the Northern economy. I think the South went to war to protect its own slave based economy. And for other reasons as well.]
To feel better about being Southern than you already do? [Heck, as I've posted on these threads, I argued against segregation while living in the Deep South in the 50s and 60s. I donated food to the march on Selma because I thought that blacks had a right to vote even if it was not for the party I favored. I went to hear Martin Luther King speak. I argued at work during a summer job that blacks had the same rights as whites, and I got threatened with murder by a white hick. I voted against the Democrat race-baiters and segregationists when I became old enough to vote. So, I know both the good sides and the bad sides of the South. I wouldn't trade it, warts and all, for any other part of the country, and I've been to all 50 states.]
I'm not saying it's all a waste or I wouldn't participate, but there are definitely reasons why this becomes trying and wearying at times.
If it's trying to you, don't bother posting. I would much rather have you provide some information, whether it supports my argument or not. Mostly though, you seem to post opinions, not data.
The same kind of violations of civil liberties that people ascribe to Lincoln also happened in the Confederacy. When they were in power and confronted with similar situations, Davis and his government behaved in ways not so very different to the United States (which was and is more than one man).
One reason I reacted as I did is that we already discussed the topics you mentioned back in April. See my responses here and here. I didn't relish having these things thrown at me as though they were new and important information that I absolutely had to look up all over again, regardless of what was going on in my own life at the time.
Okay, so I'm free to respond or not respond as I see fit, but why does my not responding make you so defensive about what you post? And why the snide comment about "the kind of poster" I am if I let you know that I'm not going to engage? It sounds like you've got more riding on this than you let on.