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

I don't quite understand this sentence. Abolition is not a modern perception of morality?

"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."

Of course, only radical abolitionists in the nation considered the EP "watered down" or not far reaching enough. For the majority of Americans (North and South), the EP was quite significant as it was and for what it proposed.

Lincoln was careful to craft this EP to fit the political and legal realities of the time.

"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."

Which federal officials pressed Congress and Lincoln for immediate emancipation right after he was elected?

"No, I'm observing that the Northern Government wasn't that crazy about freeing slaves."

Your position seems to be jumping around. In an earlier post I said basically the same thing ("in 1860 only a small population of radical abolitionists supported a sweeping national ban against slavery.") and you said that you "totally" disagreed with that statement. Just above you said that many people in power wanted immediate emancipation. Now you claim that the "Northern Government" (which I assume included "many people in POWER") didn't want emancipation.

So, which is it?

"It is inexcusable not to end slavery when the opportunity is there to do so, and that is a judgment I stand by."

One could argue that the "opportunity" to end slavery had existed for decades (even centuries). Northern states voluntarily ended slavery during and shortly after the American Revolution. During that period, the rest of the South had the opportunity to end it too. Virginia and Maryland seriously considered gradual emancipation, but ultimately decided against it. If not embracing immediate abolition was "inexcusable," I wonder how you feel about the generations of Southerners who not only failed to end slavery, but defended it and promoted its expansion!

"Considering that they had been arguing over slavery for 89 years I find it anti-climatic."

Did anyone during this era feel that emancipation was "anti-climactic"? The power and importance of an historical event relies more upon how it affected the people and societies of its time...not how you or I or someone else 140 years later may "find it."

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

There is a difference between learning from history and judging people of the past according to personal feelings.

I imagine many people on this website are glad that slavery is gone, and wish to never see an institution like it in the United States again. I also imagine these same people are not ready to curse or condemn their Southern ancestors for accepting (even defending) slavery when it was a legally established institution.