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

So I see the twisting of my words and the perversion of what you conceive are my thoughts. I see a determined action to discredit me. I see no actual analysis of history here.

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

So far I see one person attacking my post and one person complementing my post and no others. Since I understand what I'm saying and Kieth has no problem, that's 2 to 1 that my post are clear and simple.

"These are all questions asking for historical evidence to back your claims."

What historcial claims did I make? I made my own opinions that you were offended by. Take them for what their worth. If you want to pay me for my time, I'll look up that information you seek for you if you really want historical references. I would have gladly taken the time to gather the information for free if I was treated with a bit more respect and sensarity. The major opinion I rendered and the only one I cared about in the first place has already been agreed to several times but for some reason here we are.

All I see is a person wanting to drag out this for no purpose but to discredit me.

"How could Lincoln have justified ending slavery as a war time measure in areas not under rebellion---or from loyal Unionist owners?"

Already answered that.

"But, what military reason, or wartime necessity, was there to justify the forcible freeing all slaves across the nation?""

Already answered that.

"Do you have statistics of how many senators or congressmen were placed into office specifically or primarily by abolitionist groups?"

I didn't make a claim that I knew that. Look it up yourself. Can you tell me that their were not?

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

Already answered that. If you want more, I got Paypal.

"Did anyone during this era feel that emancipation was 'anti-climactic'?"

Why? That's my opinion and I already answered you the reasons.

Where's question asking me for specific references and details on why E.P. wasn't "watered down"? Oh yeah you believe that it was too.

"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"

Geez Craig you didn't even get that right. Look at the summary ending sentence. I said, "Its simple, they could have freed the slaves much earlier if they really wanted to." That has been my only standing point.

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

Keep reading my post. Abolitionist backed John Brown, abolitionist where in Congress. Charles Sumner being one, he was affiliated with the Secret Six, those who banked rolled John Brown. You know how tangled that web was.

"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"

Keep reading my post."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"

"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...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."

What bull. I said it was my opinion it was 'watered down', didn't say where I got it, you pressed me later, and I told you where I got it. Opinions are usually based on fact. Are you faulting me for basing my opinions on fact? Again you are not clear at all.

Let me remind everyone what you said

"Of course, only radical abolitionists in the nation considered the EP "watered down" or not far reaching enough"

["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'] D.U.

"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." Criag

Here you put your only good "judgment" in the middle of this mess, why are you hiding it? This is the heart of your what your beef is with my opinion and I gave you my answer. Here you see why I disagreed with "how" not "what" you were saying. I recognized it after two or so post. Had you worded you post like that I would have agreed but you did not. Why do you continue to drag this out?

_____________________
David Upton