Start reading here http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68425
and continue to http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68473 while keeping in mind the above 82 post--
Now that is just laughable George.
Let me prove it to you.
Go to the top of the page and choose SEARCH. Type in the word "subjection".
You will find that the only one using the word, beside RE Lee, is yourself in this new post. Please don't "revise history" by putting words in my mouth.
I do admit it MAY not be true you did not use the exact word “subjection” as I stated . I will say this, I could not find the exact post or response where you used the actual word, I did however find several instances where you did promote the idea
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=67989
I might add that if the facts show that, when offered a clear choice between keeping slavery or gaining independence, the South chose slavery, then the War could more properly be called the "War to Maintain Southern Slavery".
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=67993
Under the circumstances, a policy choice was clearly made early on not to even consider exchanging emancipation for independence, so the phrase "War for Southern Independence" loses any real meaning from that point on, it clearly became "The Slaveholder's War".
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68016
Whoever made those choices clearly chose that to maintain slavery was more important, and decided "we'll take our chances on winning independence with slavery, rather than guarantee it without".
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68020
So I ask: if the South was conquered "numerically", why did they not simply arm their slaves as soldiers to achieve their independence?
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68058
The War of course was fought for Southern Independence, no question, but if in the long run maintaining slavery cost the CSA the victory, where was their true heart?
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68080
So there it is: even in the final throes of the last days of a quickly falling confederacy and with the leadership grasping at the last desperate straws, when it came down to making a choice between emancipation of slaves or their own independence, the leadership of the CSA clearly chose that maintaining slavery trumped independence.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68081
Alan, I think one can only conclude that even grasping at the very last desperate straw, the leadership of the CSA, congressional and executive, chose slavery over any hope of independence even at that late hour.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68109
So as the proverbiable boat is sinking and one by one things are lost in the order of their importance, the one thing remaining in the boat as it went down was slavery.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68119
Almost this entire post you are trying to convince me the only cause was slavery.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68202
Therefore, by the CHOICES they made, it shows that keeping slavery was more important to them in the long run.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68284
I simply asked which was more important to the CSA political leadership., their property or their independence?
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68285
In practice then it was up to the property owners to make the choice, hold their property and earn the nation independence, or hold their property and loose.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68303
" IF indeed, securing Independence was the real reason the South fought the War, seems like they forgot their priority and were mostly unwilling to do the hardest choices that their ablest military commanders asked of them, and they took quite awhile to get around to them until far too late to be any help in achieving the stated goal."
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68345
The one and only property that they fought tooth and nail not to ever surrender, or at least demand from owners to provide, was slaves. I base my opinion on that fact, but at least we now seem to be in agreement that something, however you wish to frme it, was MORE important to the CSA political leadership than winning their independence.
http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=68392
Now George, Davis does not have to ever say openly I love slavery more than I love my independence, --which Hunter and other congressmen basicly did admit--. As we all know, acting speak louder than words and so do choices.