[Rockingham]

Which works of Charles Beard do you find persuasive in forming your views? He is not thought of as a Civil War historian, and in later works Beard modified his Progressive interpretation and put more emphasis on ideas instead of his reading of economic interests as controlling.

In recent decades, a clutch of historians -- most prominently the late conservative Forrest McDonald -- effectively demolished the Beard Progressive interpretation by thorough original research in letters, diaries, and newspapers.

Of course, in any sort of research undertaking, one must guard against the fallacy of confirmation bias in which alternative explanations are ignored. In that vein, just why do you reject the abundant references to the defense of slavery in the Confederate articles of secession as stating the motive for secession?

[FLT-bird]

Which works of Charles Beard do you find persuasive in forming your views? He is not thought of as a Civil War historian, and in later works Beard modified his Progressive interpretation and put more emphasis on ideas instead of his reading of economic interests as controlling. In recent decades, a clutch of historians -- most prominently the late conservative Forrest McDonald -- effectively demolished the Beard Progressive interpretation by thorough original research in letters, diaries, and newspapers.

As I've told you:

A) I don't get my views from historians. I look at original sources and form my own opinions based on those sources.

B) I disagree that Beard is not considered a Civil War historian or that anybody "demolished" Beard's interpretation. I grant you that it became less popular during the Cold War which to make a nationalist interpretation of things more fashionable and any questioning of the economics made people think it somehow expressing sympathy for the Commies (it wasn't).

C) You want original research? Look at the newspaper editorials from all sides I posted above. Those would tend to support Beard's economic interpretation.

Of course, in any sort of research undertaking, one must guard against the fallacy of confirmation bias in which alternative explanations are ignored. In that vein, just why do you reject the abundant references to the defense of slavery in the Confederate articles of secession as stating the motive for secession?

I didn't "ignore" them. I explained that violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution by the Northern states was used as a PRETEXT for secession by the original 7 seceding states. The facts and evidence....their numerous complaints about the economics despite the tariff and unequal federal expenditures not being unconstitutional AND their rejection of the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever show that their real concern was not the protection of Slavery. After all, what could make it more clear that the North was not interested in threatening slavery?

In addition to that, secession effectively meant the rapid end of slavery due to the original seceding states losing the benefits and protections of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution and their complete inability to secure a 1500 mile border from the Atlantic Coast of South Carolina all the way to El Paso, Texas.

Nor could "the expansion of slavery" have been it either given that when those states seceded, they did so with only their own sovereign territory. They made no claim to the Western Territories of the US. Thus, by seceding they gave up any chance to spread slavery. Obviously this wasn't their big concern either.

Thus what's left? THE MONEY. What do people usually fight about? THE MONEY. Its not that difficult to figure out once you look past the propaganda.