George,

"They didn't try to alter the constitution. How can the Confederate government alter the United States constitution?"

Well, actually establishing the precedent of secession was an alteration to the Constitutional system, but that is beside the point here. The fact is that the Confederacy wrote up a Constitution that mirrored much of the US Constitution except with added protections for slavery.

"Again so what is your point slavery was still legal in both countries. My point is exactly opposite of yours, why should the CSA ban slavery when the USA did not? The Confederate Constitution did ban slave trade with all nations same as the United States."

No one said that they should have banned slavery. I am pointing out that the Confederacy made some very additions to their version of the Constitution, which shows where their interests were.

"2. And as I plainly pointed out there was no orders or reason for Anderson to move. This is a historical fact not an interpertation."

What do orders have to do with this? Anderson's reasons for moving are quite well-known. In fact, look at what Anderson himself said, rather than rely upon a postwar account by a Confederate officer who wasn't there.

"I left orders to have all the guns at Fort Moultrie spiked, and the carriages of the 32-pounders, which are old, destroyed. I have sent orders to Captain Foster, who remains at Fort Moultrie, to destroy all the ammunition which he cannot send over. The step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the effusion of blood."---Robert Anderson to Col. S. Cooper, December 26, 1860.
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0001%2F&tif=00018.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0001&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50

The man who ordered the move---Anderson---claimed he was trying to avoid bloodshed...this does not sound like an "aggressive" act.

"I went back and you did post the above, I either overlooked it or simply forgot about it in my reply, my apologies. Thank you it does help verify my point that the right to choose was coming under attack."

No problem.