"It means that the idea of abolition of slaves was around to at least to 1776 and moral and ethical feeling against slavery still exists today. In other words, before your time, my time, and their time; it is not a modern ideal but an old ideal carried over."

Yes, moral opposition to slavery dated well before the Civil War. Do you believe that justifies modern-day Americans condemning 19th century Americans who did not believe slavery was immoral?

I said: "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."

You responded: "Thanks for adding the obvious information."

If it was obvious to you that the EP was quite significant in its time and place, then how are you justified in proclaiming it to be "watered down"?

"My position is not jumping anywhere. I was disagreeing with on how you where making a mental picture that the Northern government did not contemplate abolition early on, you were making the case that abolition was an after thought to the crisis and was not a moral or legal issue with that body. I should have quoted the entire post not just the small passage. Don't you see what I'm doing?"

I have argued that most people in Congress had no intention of challenging or ending slavery at the beginning of the war. Many of them opposed slavery, but were unwilling to take the radical step of national emancipation at that time. You can't seem to decide whether you agree with that point or not, partly because you seem to have misread my posts. In an earlier reply, you said:

"Your thesis is an assumption is these Congresses would not have ever been exposed to the idea on a nation wide ban on salvery, therefore they never would have thought of proposing it, until sometime around 1865."

I never said anything about Congress not being "exposed" to the idea of abolition. In fact, I said something you seem to agree with in some of your posts: "Congress, as a body, always had the authority to pass an amendment abolishing slavery. What is important is when people in Congress were willing to use that authority for that end. 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."

Later you said: "My thought is they were well exposed to the idea, had been for nearly thirty of more years, and they clearly had debated it, and could have proposed ended slavery nationwide, and did, well before 1865."

I have not disputed the fact that men in Congress were quite familiar with the slavery debate. That does not change the fact that few wanted to take the radical step of emancipation at the outbreak, or even the first year or so, of the war. In fact, you acknowledge this with your statement, "No, I'm observing that the Northern Government wasn't that crazy about freeing slaves."

You also said: "It only takes one to bring it to the floor for debate. The point being they knew that the question must be asked. Asking the question was simple. It was not done for what ever reason."

I explained the reason...abolition was a significant step, and one that many people were not ready to take until they became convinced that such a step was necessary for the Union's interests.

After trying to disagree with me with points that, ultimately, agree with me, you made a comment that does not reconcile with your earlier arguments:
"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."

You have not explained who these people were, nor is it clear where they fit into your previous assertion that "it only takes one to bring it to the floor for debate. ...Asking the question was simple. It was not done for what ever reason." So, on one hand you say abolitionists who supported immediate emancipation were quite active in politics, but then you turn and say that no one brought up immediate emancipation when they could have.

"If the Northern government, the men in power, Lincoln, congress, really, truly wanted slavery to end, they could have made steps much earlier to do so."

Men who "really, truly wanted slavery to end" did take some important steps for that end. Emancipation in Washington DC was achieved in 1862. Pressure was also put on the border states, particularly West Virginia, to enact their own emancipation laws. Now everyone in power was as enthusiastic about aggressive abolition plans, and many people who opposed slavery were cautious about the steps to go about it.

You complain that it took too long for Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Based on the political, social, and economic realities of the time, when do you think that everyone in Congress should have abolished slavery? This question does not ask when you would "like" to have seen slavery abolished, but when you believe that, given the historical realities in the early 1860s, these men could have and should have taken the ultimate step of enforced national abolition.

"They chose not to (for what ever reason, either they could not or would not). This is not a modern moral judgment on 19th century actions."

Recognizing that most in Congress did not want to forcibly abolish slavery is not a modern moral judgment. Saying that it was "inexcusable" that they didn't do it sooner, that emancipation was "anti-climactic," and that the EP was "watered down" are modern judgments.

"Why, because it is been misrepresented by historians, politicians, writers, movie makers, since Lincoln's death."

Okay, can you give some examples.

"The North was not fighting the war to free the slaves; it had serious problems with doing so, even with Northern men in power pushing for emancipation early on."

This is exactly what I have been saying...yet you disagreed. Why?

"Lincoln was not the great emancipator. Lincoln really had the backing and power to free slaves, but he didn't act on that, not immediately or very forcefully."

Hundreds of thousands (actually, probably millions) of slaves believed Lincoln was the great emancipator. Were they wrong? Did they not understand the significance (or lack of significance) of his actions?

I understand your point. Many Americans do not understand the moderate approach Lincoln took to emancipation. The image of Lincoln leading a moral army to stamp out slavery is present in some places (largely boosted by celebrations after the war and Lincoln's death) despite the fact that historical reality was not quite so dramatic. Nonetheless, Lincoln's EP was quite significant. He knew it and other Americans knew it. The fact that he did not end slavery across the nation with one blow does not diminish the significance of his act given its context. The EP did more to end slavery than any single act in American history to that time. Had a more conservative or cautious man been in office, such an act may never have been taken at all. Heck, McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 practically opposed to emancipation and painted Lincoln as a radical abolitionist in order to get conservative votes.

We can recognize the actual limits of the EP without trying to dismiss it as "anti-climactic" or "watered down." To take such a position, really, does not dismiss the image of Lincoln the great emancipator, but because it actually EMBRACES it. To say the EP was "watered down" works from the belief that it was (or was supposed to be) quite radical and complete. In short, it appears that you have accepted the myth while trying to knock it down.

"Would you please tell me how I judged and who I judged on my personal feelings [i.e. modern ethical feelings]? We must certainly judge actions and choices of the past, but, on the other hand, we should not give modern ethical judgments to past ethical beliefs."

I would point again to your comments like the EP being "watered down," that it was "inexcusable" for Congress to wait until 1865 to successfully pass the 13th Amendment, and that emancipation was "anti-climactic." These are your personal feelings about historical events outside of their actual context. The EP was considered quite significant as it was introduced, and you later acknowledged that as "obvious." Thus, the belief that it was "watered down" is a personal (and hindsight) observation based on your assumptions of what it should be, according to the later myth. Emancipation was not "anti-climactic" to Americans at the time. And the argument that Congress' performance regarding slavery was "inexcusable" projects a clear personal judgment.

"So why can't Southerners be ready to condemn their ancestors for owning or selling slaves even if it were legal?"

Oh, they can condemn their ancestors if they wanted to voice their opinion on the subject. But, do they want to? Do people here regularly portray their ancestors as evil traders in human flesh, who defended an immoral institution well beyond the time when most of the civlized world have voluntarily given it up? Some people in the 19th century thought this. But, I have not seen many people today who take pride in their Confederate roots accept such an assessment of their ancestors.

"What if slavery was against their ancestor's religion or creed and was against slavery, could we praise them? Oh wait that would be a modern judgment on 19th Century ideals, can't do that…. Hogwash."

People can make judgments of historical figures, but such judgments are really only valid when they consider the realities of their day.