George,

"1. Why shouldn't slavery was still legal in the Union states. I fail to see what point you are trying to make here. Slavery was legal in both the USA and CSA."

This is not a question of what the South should or should not have done. You stated that "the Southern states did not try and alter the Constitution, they drew up their own which I believe was aalmost a mirrow of the US constitution." I explained that they did provide much more direct protections of slavery than the US Constitution ever had. That is a fact, and that is my point. If you had some other point about the Confederate Constitution (since you brought it up), please elaborate.

"2. You are the one who said the South made the first agressive move. Here is clear proof we did not. This is not an interpation, but written by a man who lived the times. And what was Anderson defending against? The Confederates could have attacked him long before his move if they had the desire."

I said that the firing on Fort Sumter (and the various raids on federal arsenals across the South) was aggressive. Anderson's move was defensive as he relocated his men to the more easily defensible island fort.

Sorry to break this to you, but E. P. Alexander's postwar account is NOT proof that the federal government made the first aggressive move. As I pointed out, his account provides no new revalation about the events. Anderson's move was still defensive. If you think retreating to a better DEFENSIVE location is an AGGRESSIVE move, please explain.

"You are right about the spelling, I also no how to spell Sumter. Thank you for nit-picking, peop,e usul;ally do that when they have noother argument."

Poor spelling is a pet-peeve of mine, but it also reflects poorly upon the writer. I brought the "Sumpter" thing up because you try to use Alexander's account as absolute "proof" of what happened at Fort Sumter when he doesn't even spell the fort's name correctly!

"Correct Alexander was not in the South at the time but was still a Union officer until his resignation was final."

And so why is his postwar account (written as a distant observer) any more valid than other accounts?

"3. As wll as the Norths?"

Sure, it could have been wrong too.

"4. No just like I said partly. I asked you if the fact the states losing the right to choose was an issue you siad "No>""

No, you didn't say that originally. You did not say that "states" were "losing" the right, but that "territories" had already "lost" the right. That is a big difference. Here is your original wording: "In fact wasn't one of the reasons that the Southern states started seceding was because the new territories were not allowed to choose whether they would be free or slave?"

Did you forget what you said?

"Well according to this iste it is a fact they were concerned. I believe the last sentence I posted says something to the effect that Lincoln and the abolishist went to work immediately to remove this right. It was a real concern and you are only partly right."

Of course they were concerned, and I have always maintained that. You are not only changing your own words, but ignoring mine. Here is my earlier comment: "In fact, by 1860 the Kansas-Nebraska Act was still in place and the Dred Scott decision had declared that Congress had no authority to deny slavery from any of the territories. Lincoln and the Republicans announced their intention to reverse this, but at the time of secession, slavery was not outlawed from the territories."

So, tell me how I am only partly right.

"I have proved all my points, feel free to have the last word."

Unfortunately, you have not, since you've changed some of your points.