Nearly forty you's, that's a love letter.

Overall, why would I make up things you said when there is a very clear record of what you wrote available to us all? Do you not remember writing these conflicting sentences?
There only conflicting to you. My sentences are clear. My statements and questions are simple. It is very obvious you have problems reading them and understanding them. You try to discredit what I write by twisted questions that are designed to cloud the issue. Instead of debating facts or asking for facts you attack my opinions, that's okay, its good entertainment, although a tremendous waste of time.

What was my mine point in this string? Do you even remember? You agreed with it several times but continued to attempt to discredit me with misdirection and telling me what I said and how I said it.

Lets recap you...

"As for why slavery was not abolished sooner, I would argue that it was abolished remarkably quickly. Considering the fact that only radicals and extreme abolitionists considered a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery in 1860 and 1861, the reality that Congress got its act together by 1865---in four years---to overturn a major American institution is really amazing."

This is your attempt to make a mental picture that ending slavery was an after thought to 89 years of conflict over the issue, really no big deal. In other words you are saying that Congress discovered the idea of emancipation in only four years and that mental change from ignorance of emancipation to discovery and implementation was "amazing"

"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."
Again ignoring 89 years of conflict over the issue. Where are the years of compromise? Where is John Brown and the abolitionist backed attempt at a slave revolt in 1859? Again you state this transition was ..."remarkably swift". A strange judgment of events by a 21st Century man on 19th events.

Even though on other post you do mention the defense of slavery why before 1860...

"Most of this extreme defense of slavery really developed after around 1830"

"There are some interesting books related to this subject, including Lacy Ford's "Origins of Southern Radicalism," J. Mills Thornton's "Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860," and William J. Cooper's "The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828-1856." Among the topics these books cover is the increasing defense of slavery in the South in the 1850s, to where politicians of both parties in the Deep South would often try to one-up each other in just how "Southern" they were with their defense of slavery. Antislavery material was banned from many parts in the South (sometimes publicly burned, such as pamphlets and books). The defense of slavery became so powerful that even religious denominations in the South which had earlier challenged the morality of slavery broke from their northern counterparts and adapted to accept slavery, which is why there are "Southern" branches of the Baptist and Methodist churches."
It seems to me you know that the struggle for the elimination of slavery was a very slow process but you do not want to lose your points.
In another and same post you seem to contradict yourself.

"A wartime emergency still requires a positive link. Ending slavery of loyal Unionists was not necessary for the war effort."

"Even the move against slavery adopted by many Republicans as a wartime necessity "

So "many Republicans" or Unionist adopted the move against slavery as a wartime necessity but it was not necessary to end slavery of loyal Unionist for the war effort. You are being very confusing here.

"There were loyal Unionists in areas under rebellion whose slaves were freed (particularly after the EP). But the border states and other areas that were firmly in federal control were exempt because the wartime necessity, the actual reason and justification for such radical maneuver, did not exist. "
"There were loyal Unionists in areas under rebellion whose slaves were freed (particularly after the EP"

And many were compensated.

" But the border states and other areas that were firmly in federal control were exempt because the wartime necessity, the actual reason and justification for such radical maneuver, did not exist."

The reason would have been to swell the ranks of the Union armies by conscription, and relieve the white troops that had been in the field. This was the major cause for abolitionist wanting immediate emancipation, everywhere.

Fact: ending slavery for "abolitionist" was a wartime necessity to fill the ranks of Union armies with freed slaves, this I do know, can back it up, and will do so if you ask for reference.

"The statement, "the fact it took [Congress] from 1861 until 1866 to end slavery IS inexcusable," is not an assessment of abilities but an assessment of performance. You asserted that the delay in enforcing national abolition was "inexcusable," meaning they SHOULD have done it earlier, not that they simply COULD have done it earlier. "

Here your telling me what I meant. Why didn't you clarify my meaning instead of accusing me of something I said I was not doing?

"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."

"The military conflict was not (at least initially) about slavery, but the sectional conflict leading to secession certainly was. I agree that most people in Congress in the early part of the war had no intention of enacting emancipation. They were concerned with reuniting the Union as it was, especially those from Kentucky, Missouri Maryland and Delaware. Only after the military effort dragged on and slavery was seen as the strength (and potential weakness) of the South, did the administration and Congress formally turn against it in the form of the Confiscation Acts. Such acts helped change the dynamic of the war, as people realized that the Union (even if saved) could not return to its previous status quo. Thus, Northerners increasingly adopted the more radical stance against slavery, deciding that it was best to end slavery as a blow to the Southern war effort (and as punishment), as a moral boost to the Union cause, and as a means of preventing future slaveholding sectional conflict after reunification. "

A simple "The military conflict was not (at least initially) about slavery, but the sectional conflict leading to secession certainly was. I agree that most people in Congress in the early part of the war had no intention of enacting emancipation." Would have gotten your point across. Your answers are so long I lose interest after the first sentence because the rest I know already.

"So, I agree that during much of the war, many if not most legislators were not ready or did not want to take the dramatic step of enforcing national emancipation (particularly those of loyal slaveholding states)."
Okay, were good.

"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."

Then you say....

"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.. 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..."

If you had kept up with your own post you would not have made the mistake of legitimizing my opinions or "judgments" but still going on and condemning them.

______________________
David Upton