You define it thus:
"In your case, you cannot allow the idea that African-Americans might for whatever reason and in whatever numbers have supported their white masters or as freedmen their country, because this would undermine your belief that Union soldiers "singing hymns" and doing God's work, exacted the creators vengeance on a deserving South. "
In every post I have said blacks served. I have based nothing on Union soldiers being morally superior, or my moral judgements on the CSA, or my view of God's work.
My "starting point" in this debate about arming slaves, has ever and always, been about what SOUTHERN generals, competent valuable knowledgeable Southern commanders, said THEY said they wanted to succeed, and what the politicians of the CSA failed to give these highly regarded military lesaders. It is not coming from MY modern words or needs of today, but their contemporary often stated expressed desires about exactly what it would take for the CSA to win, expressing in their own time. My "starting point" is not about my ideas, it is about what Ewell, Cleburne, and Lee requested of their political leadership, from their own perception of the conditions in the field.
These Southern generals requested things, it was for serious reasons. They were not college kids engaged in theoretical debates. They wanted to win, they did not want to go to battle and see men died needlessly. When they made a proposal it was dead serious business to them, not some whim.
My "starting pont", is simply: were these generals needs met effectively by the political branches of the CSA? They would not have made political requests or proposals if they did not see that political solutions were unnecessary. That is my starting point.
The discussion I wish to start was from that start and that start alone.
You then say:
"I believe that your starting point in your discussions is not "did slaves in the South willingly fight in great numbers and voluntarily for the Confederacy", I believe this is a tool to advance a more
basic argument of a superior moral position in the North on the subject of slavery, generally."
I again say absolutely wrong. I even said Lincoln made morally questionable decisions about freeing only some slaves for strategic reasons not moral ones, and in refusing POW exchange which ended up brutalizing his own men and costing many lives, but he chose that policy as well not for the morallity and humanity of it but for military expedience also.
I clearly state Lincoln was not motrally superiort, only more effective in make hard and unpopular decisions because his ablest military commanders aaid it would further the war strategy. The starting point with Lincoln was not moral superioirity, it was the willingness to make politically very harsh decisions because they would be more effective.
Effectiveness is my starting point, not moral superiority.
In none of my post and none of my parable have i tried to show anyone was morally superior, but that they chopices they made, made them either succeed or fail in their stated goals.
The CSA political wing long ignored the wishes of able commanders. I asked was it waise an deffective policy, not whether it was moral? I asked which side was correct, the CSA military, or the CSA politicians. My starting point was a choice between CSA and CSA, not USA and CSA.
I never asked once who was right or superior between the USA and the CSA, although I did say the USA, for very obvious reasons, was more effective in acheiving their goal. That is no moral judgement in any way, shape, or form. It isn't about God's will, any more than which football team moved their offense better is about morality or God. Was team X's defense or offense more ineffective, and more responsible for the loss that just happened this week? Was it their passing or their blocking that failed?
My starting point is much closer to ESPN and nothing at all about MMLJ.