[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yep, Lincoln offered to put his promise not to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed in writing. In fact, at his first inaugural, he said that he already felt that to be implied constitutional law, and that he had no objection to making it express law. What it doesn't say, and what Lincoln would not agree to, was that slavery would be allowed in the territories. So the south wasn't interested.

You do realize that nothing in that stopped each state from ending slavery on its own, as many had already done, right? Or are you demanding that Lincoln step on states' rights more?

[southernsunshine]

I do realize and heaven’s no, no more stepping on state’s rights! I just don’t see any moral high ground for either. To me, the degree of participation in slavery does not negate the fact of participation (in the context of North vs South as a whole). As I’ve stated before, there were individuals who were abolishionist, pro-slavery, and some that didn’t care either way, on both sides.