"In what way would Lincoln have been justified in freeing slaves (which was, in fact, confiscating property) of loyal Unionists during the war? I agree that as commander-in-chief, he had the power to take extreme actions for military reasons. But, what military reason, or wartime necessity, was there to justify the forcible freeing all slaves across the nation? ..."

Again, I am not arguing motives. I'm commenting on your statement....

"Lincoln did not have the ability to grant freedom to slaves of loyal Union men."

I absolutely believe he did.

-------------------

"Your comment that "the fact it took [Congress] from 1861 until 1866 to end slavery IS inexcusable," is a personal and 21st century judgment of 19th century Americans...and one that arguably ignores the political realities of the 37th and 38th Congress and tenuous border state balance during the war."

Wrong. It is a judgement of those congresses abilities t o pass laws and make acts, which they did quite well and without little opposition. If they could make an admendment to end slavery in 1865-66 they could have done in 61-62. Nobody tried until a Democrate made the motion. These congresses were NOT deadlocked.

--------------------

"As I said before, in 1860 only a small population of radical abolitionists supported a sweeping national ban against slavery. Following events so dramatically changed American perceptions that by 1865---in only 5 years---the federal government (and most northerners) was pushing an emancipation amendment. This transition was not "inexcusably" slow, but remarkably swift."

So the war wasn't about slavery? Thats what I thought. Like I said "Its simple, they could have freed the slaves much earlier if they really wanted to." They didn't want to.

________________________
David Upton