There are a couple of errors of fact above, but let's ignore them.
Your logic goes like this:
This is a pure and simple logical fallacy. Points #1 and 2 have no observable relationship to your conclusion. You can just as easily say this:
- Jefferson Davis liked/supported railroads
- Clayton M. Moore liked/supported railroads
- therefore, Moore supported Davis for President of the Confederacy because of the Transcontinental Railroad
Neither one of those proves the conclusion because there is no evidence to support the conclusion, merely empty supposition. This is how you always present your case for the Transcontinental RR and secession. All you present is unsupported supposition and conjecture.
- Jefferson Davis liked/supported education (see reforms at West Point during his term as Secretary of War)
- Clayton M. Moore liked/supported education (he was first president of the Board of Trustees of the University of Mississippi and served on the board from 1857 to 1870.)
- therefore, Moore supported Davis for President of the Confederacy because of their shared interest in education
If I am not mistaken, Clayton Moore was the Lone Ranger. But feel free to point out my errors.
Once again, do you have in your vocabulary any words other than "Nothing proves your conclusion" and "No evidence supports your conclusion" and "your view is mere supposition" and "all you write about is unsupported supposition and conjecture"? No countervailing evidence to support your analysis? Or do you not need evidence?
I don't buy your imputation of a "logical fallacy" but I did enjoy your syllogism anyway and I can appreciate your need to discredit my view, though it is actually quite harmless and very sensible.