Good Morning George!

You wrote:

"They must have had a reason to believe so. Don't you agree? I have a tendency to think so taking into consideration all of the Lincoln quotes about slavery."

--I think there is no question they believed it, but like I showed earlier, I don't think that belief was founded upon evidence. It was a faulty assumption.

You wrote:

"I'll also concede the point of homes to you on a technicality; however I do believe you know what I am referring to. Again I ask you what supplies were needed. The soldiers were drawing supplies from Charleston. I have already posted reference to that; shall I repost copy the whole page? How much gunpowder and how many bullets does a Union soldier eat in a day, why more troops? It is a clear aggressive move if there ever was one."

--I do know what you mean. Many Southern young men joined because they believed they were protecting their land from an invading army.

--Lincoln specifically said he was sending in "food for hungry men." The warships with soldiers did not enter the harbor. He did not send in gunpowder or bullets, but food for hungry men.

You wrote:

"Sorry but I simply cannot accept this-- "My interpretation is based on evidence' because you say this "That isn't my "interpretation" of the ideology of the Confederate leaders, those are their words." Several times I have referenced to the words of Lincoln that you posted and you gave me and interpretation. We cannot play that game. If Lincoln said it by golly he meant it just Like Stephens and Davis. Lancôme said he had no intention of freeing any salve-- but he lied. Remember the EP and letter to Greeley, just two days before his Great War Measure."

--I have placed Lincoln's words into context. I have placed the words of the Confederate leadership into context. I don't see where the problem comes in. I take Lincoln at his word, just as I take Davis and Stephens at their word.

You wrote:

"I'll concede to your point on the war measure. He wrote the EP all the while declaring he was not going to interfere in the instruction of slavery. Seems like he told one lie after another doesn't it? I mean freeing slaves, bringing them back into slavery as the Union armies advanced. Lincoln was a busy fellow wasn't he?"

--He absolutely did not write "the EP all the while declaring he was not going to interfere in the instruction of slavery." Here is the chronology:

--Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854 to Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858--Lincoln says he is against the extension of slavery into the territories, but he clearly states the president has no authority under the constitution to interfere with slavery in the Southern states. Though the word "slave" or "slavery" never appears in the U.S. Constitution, it is protected by 10 specific provisions. Lincoln says he can do nothing to slavery where it already exists.

--Campaign for 1860--Lincoln reiterates his position. He cannot attack slavery where it exists. The Republican Party Platform states they will oppose the "extension" of slavery into the territories. Lincoln pledges himself to the Republican Party Platform.

--First Inaugural--Lincoln reiterates his long-held position. If the South is afraid he is going to take their property away, he says they have nothing to fear. The Constitution protects their right to own slaves. If they don't believe him, Lincoln tells them to work within the political system and pass a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits the executive branch from attacking slavery where it is already constitutionally protected.

--Fort Sumter to Antietam--Lincoln says he is fighting the war to save the Union. He is not interested in touching slavery. When folks like Horace Greeley call him out before the American public and plead with him to Emancipate the nation's 4 million slaves, Lincoln replies that his primary objective is to save the Union, period. If he can save the Union by freeing all the slaves he would gladly do it; if he could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves, he would do it; if he could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do it. "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union," Lincoln explained. The rebellion must be put down.

--Emancipation Proclamation--Lincoln issues this as a war-measure, designed to save the Union, and put down the rebellion. Simply as president during peace-time, he could not have constitutionally issued this measure. I will also add that if he had been president during peace-time he would not have issued this proclamation. However, there is a war. He must save the Union. The first two-years of the war have convinced him, and many in the North, that the rebellion must be stomped out. The Emancipation Proclamation is designed to save the Union.

--When the rebellion is over, the Emancipation Proclamation will no longer be applicable. Theoretically, slavery would return. However, the U.S. Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery in America. Note, this is what Lincoln had said all along. In peace-time, the president had no constitutional authority to outlaw slavery where it already existed. He did not challenge that. In war-time, he needed to preserve the Union, so he issued the EP as a temporary war-measure. The Congress, as he had been saying since the late 1830s, outlawed slavery via constitutional amendment, which is applicable during wartime or peacetime.

You wrote:

"I have no problem what-so ever- with the words of Davis or Stephens. Perhaps they were just doing like Lincoln and saying what the people wanted to hear. Again I say if we are to hold these Southern leaders to their words then by golly let’s do the same for Lincoln."

--That seems like a strange statement to me. Reread Davis and Stepehens' statements and tell me again if you don't have a problem with them.

--I don't buy the charge that Lincoln was "saying what the people wanted to hear." He said what he meant and he did what he said. My reading of Davis and Stephens also convinces me that they said what they believed.

You wrote:

"They may have if Lincoln would have met the peace delegation. Referring back to the letter I posted, I can't help but thinking slavery was not the main issue. I mean why would they turn down such an offer if all they wanted was to keep their slaves?"

--Lincoln met a peace delegation from Virginia on April 4th. His Secretery of State, William Seward, had been meeting peace delegations as well. We know that the meetings were fruitless. Lincoln had stated his position in the first inaugural, while Confederacy had stated their position in their various Declaration of Causes.

You wrote:

"I mean why would they turn down such an offer if all they wanted was to keep their slaves?...Again, they were not fighting to free the slaves. They were fighting to preserve the Union....I agree but wouldn't it be fair to say the South was not fighting to keep the slaves either?

--The road to war ran through slavery, there is no question. Jeff Davis, Alexander Stephens, and the various Declaration of Causes said so. The U.S. Constitution offered slave owners more protection than any alternative under the sun. It protected their right to own slaves, period. I suspect that was not enough.

--The Confederacy was threatened by Lincoln and the Republican Party's determination to oppose the "extension" of slavery into the territories. The Confederacy wanted slavery to expand across the Americas, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Slave owners dreamed of and wrote about expanding into Mexico, Latin America, South America, and the largest prize of them all, the Caribbean. The Republicans were determined to oppose that expansion, period. If that slave empire was to reach fruition, they needed to break away from their Republican counterparts.

--And then the war came.

Best,
Sam.