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

No, that can be expected in an analysis of someone's claims.

"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."

They may appear clear to you, but that does not mean they are clear to everyone.

"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."

Nonsense. I have been asking for you to back up your claims with evidence since the beginning. For instance:

"How could Lincoln have justified ending slavery as a war time measure in areas not under rebellion---or from loyal Unionist owners?" http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48505

"But, what military reason, or wartime necessity, was there to justify the forcible freeing all slaves across the nation?" http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48530

"Do you have statistics of how many senators or congressmen were placed into office specifically or primarily by abolitionist groups?" http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48608 (Perhaps you forgot about all of the information and facts I brought up in this particular post?)

"Which federal officials pressed Congress and Lincoln for immediate emancipation right after he was elected?" http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48688

"Did anyone during this era feel that emancipation was 'anti-climactic'?" http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48688

These are all questions asking for historical evidence to back your claims. You did not answer the first two. As for the third question, you gave a short list of some well-known antislavery men of the time, but did not give statistics or explain who their constituency was. You did not clearly answer the fourth question. And I believe you tried to answer the last question, but without any actual historical evidence, and without explaining WHO felt emancipation was anti-climactic like I asked. Your response was: "Well, slavery in the South went away very peacefully into this new era compared the great upheaval that was predicted. I have to give my ancestors and the old slave's great credit for not making situation much, much worse. The end of slavery came with a great exhaustive depression, not a major turn over of cultural destruction and social reform. An attempt was made to make it a great reconstruction of the entire order in the South but the North didn't really have the money or the heart to continue the experiment. It was very anti-climatic, no great black politician or leader took over the South, the whites were not exterminated, and the abolitionist movement faded with disinterest and new challenges with western expansion." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48752

"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."

Your original post in this string was that you believed Lincoln could have freed all the slaves. (Which is why I asked you what legal justification he would have had for freeing slaves of people and in areas not in rebellion---you didn't answer.)

You added in your original post, "The biggest question of all is, if Slavery could be made illegal by Congress, why did they wait until 65-66?" And concluded, "Its simple, they could have freed the slaves much earlier if they really wanted to." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48500

My next response to you was that the political, economic, and social realities of the nation early in the war kept it off the table for a while. I also argued that considering these realities, it was quite remarkable that Congress was able to organize as well as it did to enact national abolition by 1865.

Your very next post diverted from what you had originally asked. While you had said that the "biggest question of all" was why Congress did not abolish slavery before 1865, you then turn to claim, "Im not arguing their motives I'm saying that they had the power by legislation to remove slavery at anytime." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48519

Congressional authority was not an issue in this debate. Lincoln's authority to single-handedly end slavery was, but not Congress'.

My next response was very clear. I said: "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." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48530

Now, you should have realized at that point that I was not debating Congressional authority to abolish slavery and that I was talking about how a majority in Congress came to support such an act. Instead, you came to believe that my thesis was "an assumption [that] 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." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48571

How did you get that idea from my posts? Talk about twisting words around. Not once in any of my messages on this board did I say Congress had never been "exposed" to the idea of national emancipation.

The last part of my above post said: "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."

Of course, your response to this is well-known: "After further thought I totally disagree with this statement."

Why did you "totally disagree" with the above statement, when it in fact stood along with your argument that a majority in Congress did not want to abolish slavery early in the war?

I'm wondering if YOU remember what your argument was.

To continue with the rest of your recent post...

"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'"

I said nothing about ending slavery being "no big deal". Instead, I emphasized how many people were opposed to ending slavery before the last half of the war. Abolition was very much a "big deal" that many people opposed. What was "amazing" is that a federal government that had proposed (and even passed) a number of laws protecting the future of slavery in 1861 (including the first proposed 13th Amendment and the Congressionally approved Crittenden-Johnson Resolution) reversed itself to completely abolish slavery by 1865. This turn around was amazing.

"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."

Wait a minute...you were the one who demanded we talk about Congress only. Remember, or should I reintroduce you to your own words again? You said: "Our subject is the Congress of the United States in 61-65, not the general public." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48571

How does John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry fit into the Congress only situation?

In any case, I am talking about the transformation in Congress between 1861, when (as I've said repeatedly) most officials in Washington denounced abolition or even refused to push the matter, and 1865.

"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."

The overall national struggle over slavery lasted a while, yes. But the legislative turn around during the war was quite remarkable. And that is what I have been talking about this whole time---legislative action against slavery DURING the war.

"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."

How is that confusing? Many Republicans wanted to deny secessionists slave manpower and to hurt the Confederate cause by taking away property and using it against them. Taking slaves away from loyal Unionists in border states and areas under federal control did not accomplish those objectives.

"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."

I didn't "legitimize" your opinions, but put them into context. You personally described the EP as "watered down," only later explaining that only radicals of the time believed that. There is a big difference between you describing the EP as "watered down" and you saying that radicals described the EP was "watered down." Just to make sure that point is clear, compare the two following hypothetical sentences: "Robert E. Lee was an ungrateful traitor," versus "John Doe in 1863 believed Robert E. Lee was an ungrateful traitor." If I said the first sentence, you would clearly recognize that as MY personal judgment of Lee. The second sentence is a description of a contemporary's judgment of Lee.

If you want to argue that the EP was watered down, you will have to defend that belief in the context of its day and environment, with historical evidence. That would at least place your opinion in a proper historical context, and give it weight.