David, again you seem to be changing your stance.

I said: "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?"

You replied: "Excuse me? Don't recall saying that."

Okay, to help you recall, you said:

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

That says that you believe modern-day Americans can condemn 19th century Americans who did not believe slavery was immoral.

"It was only significant as a political tool for the radicals, It was by no means what they wanted, but they would take anything they could get."

So the ideological and military effect it had on the whole war effort was insignificant? You also believe that the effect it had on black Americans, both slave and free, was insignificant? Why was the EP such a big deal at the time if it was only significant as a political tool?

"If they really wanted to end slavery in 1861-62 they could have, they didn't want to."

Yes, if a majority in Congress wanted that to happen, they could have. I have never disputed that.

"As for a list it is quite large, he are a few."

You said these people wanted immediate emancipation. So why did they not ask the "question" and bring abolitioin to a floor debate?

"Wrong, wrong and wrong. The radicals at the time knew the EP was by no means what they wanted, but they would take anything they could get..i.e. 'watered-down'. Radical abolitionist Massachusetts Governor Andrew said about the E.P. 'The Proclamation is a poor document, but a mighty act.' Then went on to say to his fellow republicans to go out and say we endorse the act and take full credit for it. I believe any person at the time could have had the same 'judgments'."

If you meant to express an assessment of some radicals at the time, then you needed to actually say that this was the view of radicals at the time. There is a big difference between the statements: "The delay Congress experienced ending slavery was inexcusable," and "Radicals believed that the delay Congress experienced ending slavery was inexcusable." The first sentence, as written, projects the writers personal opinion. The second sentence clearly places the opinion with someone else.

You personally used terms like "inexcusable," "watered down," and "anti-climactic," to describe various historical events and items. You did not clarify that Radicals took these positions. Such clarification is absolutely necessary to distinguish between your modern judgment and the historical opinions of others of the time.

You provided some examples of internet sites and the EP:

"The practice of slavery was offically outlawed in the Unites States of America as of January 1, 1863 with the 'Emancipation Proclamation' by President Abraham Lincoln."

There is no doubt that this website incorrectly interprets and explains the EP.

"'The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, did in fact apply only to areas then in rebellion against the United States and freed few slaves on the day it was issued. But as Union troops advanced into the South, the proclamation brought freedom to bondsmen in all conquered regions not specifically exempted from it.' No mention of the nearly 400,000 slaves in bondage under Union control."

This example does not really support your case. You complain that the nearly 400,000 slaves in Union-controlled areas were not mentioned. But, above, the author clearly wrote that the EP applied "only to areas then in rebellion." That is absolutely true. The author did not lie, nor skew information. So, this is not an example of anyone misinterpreting the EP.

"Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the 'Great Emancipator,' he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves."

Okay, what is the problem here? There is nothing wrong with the above explanation.

"I don't know why your not picking up on what I'm saying, I told you I disagreed with you on how you presented your argument, I believe "if" (see quotes) the North wanted to free the slaves, early on or earlier, than 1865 they could have, if they wanted to, "but" it is obvious they didn't want to."

I'm not picking up on your argument because it is not entirely clear what you argument is. Earlier, I explained that few in Congress had any intention or desire to enact national abolition, but that changed during the war. You said that you completely disagreed with that. Now you seem to be saying the same thing. It is hard to pick up on what you are saying when you dispute something only to turn around and say it too.

"This statement covers everything you were saying but with one huge exception; you believe they couldn't have until the time it actually happened."

I never said Congress couldn't have moved against slavery. Obviously they could have, as they did. I said that it took the emergencies and frustrations of war to turn most of Congress towards national emancipation.

"He allowed slavery to continue in areas not in rebellion. He allowed the Army to buy and trade in slaves. He allowed slaves to be used to gather cotton in Mississippi to be sold by treasury agents for profit."

That is an interesting way to look at it --- Lincoln "allowed" this to happen. Did he need to give permission to slaveholders to keep their property?

"I bet they would have been a lot happier to be free a year or two earlier. How about the slaves he sent to their deaths in the Caribbean? I bet they wished they never heard of him. In the end yes, give him some credit, but he did not do what they say he did, not in a modern view."

Who were slaves sent to their deaths in the Caribbean? And, I'm sure slaves would have been happier being freed earlier...of course it wasn't Lincoln who was holding them in bondage.

In any case, the fact that many modern Americans may exaggerate the nature of the EP does not make his act insignificant. It only means that people today do not fully understand it.

"I'm not buying it. I'm not judging any issue that is out of order. ...For "watered down" I read what the radicals thought of it. For "inexcusable" and "anti-climactic" those are my opinions on those actions and events."

The problem with opinions such as "inexcusable" and "anti-climactic" is that they leave the realm of historical analysis and enter the realm of personal judgment. I'm not talking about personal opinion, which every person has. Instead, those terms are personal judgments that have little bearing in historical discussion. You say Congress was "inexcusable" in their actions against slavery. Who is trying to "excuse" them? And, even if you think they were slow, so what? You never explained how they could have or should have acted differently. The same can be said for the EP being "anti-climactic." Any person remotely educated in Civil War history knows that the EP was extremely significant during the war. Your statement that it was "anti-climactic" is simply your judgment based on who knows what.

"I have never experienced anybody having a problem with opinions like your having. Take them for what there worth."

I do not have a problem with people expressing their opinions. I do have a problem with people passing judgment without regard to the historical realities of the day.

As for no one else questioning your opinions, that may depend on where and with whom you've discussed history.