"There is the word "should" again. "

I am not judging YOU, why are YOU judging me? YOU like that word, so much so, YOU have used it over twenty times. YOU are repeating YOUrself.

"If one wants to make a judgment of 19th century actions based upon modern perceptions of morality"

The abolishment of slavery in the United States is not a modern perception of morality. It is as old as this nation.

"Lincoln did not have that ability, though he could, through his position as commander-in-chief, threaten slavery in certain areas."

If Lincoln could write a watered down E.P. he could have written one that included more areas and freed more slaves. He had many generals and troops willing to enforce emancipation.

"The other problem here is that being "against slavery" did not necessarily mean being an "abolitionist." Many Americans were "against slavery" at the outbreak of the war, but did not believe that forced emancipation was wise or proper. It was not a question of legality, but a question of politics, economics, and society."

The problem with this many people in POWER wanted immediate emancipation, forcing Lincoln to address their needs. Radicals shelved their emancipation movement, just before the election, to help get their man in the White House. Once he got in, they came back out.

"And you are looking at motive, as you continue to comment on what they "should" have done, rather than what they were simply capable of doing. That is not only questioning their motive, but judging the value of their actions. Your comment that it was "inexcusable" for Congress to wait until 1865 to formally abolish slavery very much projects your assessment of their actions, not just their legal abilities."

No, I'm observing that the Northern Government wasn't that crazy about freeing slaves. What-ever the motive, be it to preserve the Union, to pro-slavery feelings, white superiority, labor, votes. I don't want to argue motive because I didn't want go off on another tangent. It is inexcusable not to end slavery when the opportunity is there to do so, and that is a judgment I stand by. The Confederacy also gets my 'inexcusable' grade for not freeing the slaves when a majority of the troops were calling for it.

"Considering the fact that slavery had existed on the continent for over 200 years, that 4 year period was quite remarkable."

Considering that they had been arguing over slavery for 89 years I find it anti-climatic. The only remarkable fact about the ending of slavery is that it wasn't legislation that did it; it was the slaves themselves that ended it. Even without the laws slavery was out-of-the-bottle never to be put back. The slaves not revolting, quietly leaving the plantations, finding what freedom was ended slavery, not rich white men in Washington.

"I do not think such evaluations are particularly useful or productive in historical discussions."

To bad, because we 'SHOULD' if don't evaluate history we're going to keep making the same stupid mistakes.

__________________________
David Upton