He sure did! He used his first public speech as president to endorse a constitutional amendment protecting slavery!
That was during the war. In fact, the war, in sense, was well underway. It began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory and put up a different flag.
But you attempt to dodge a big bullet here. You -know- unless you are blithering, that I was referring to at least 1848, when Congressman Lincoln drafted legislation to eliminate slavery in DC, and when he was making speeches favoring the gradual elimination of slavery--well before the war.
How anyone can spout this contra-historical nonsense when our troops are in contact with enemies who would cut all our throats is beyond me.
Profesions of the legality of unilateral state secession border on treason.
And so does belittling our greatest president and statesman.
Walt
YOU:
That was during the war.
Sumter was not fired upon until mid april, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Sumter, by all reasonable means, was the start of the war as it marked the first significant event in which a battle, albeit minor, occurred. For that reason, it is said that the shots fired at sumter started the war. You yourself have acknowledged this by noting the confederacy to have fired those shots.
In fact, the war, in sense, was well underway.
Was it? Then tell me, what battles occurred before Sumter? And no, a group of rabble rousing texans killing a pro-yankee mexican does not constitute a ballot, nor do a few shots at a tugboat.
It began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory and put up a different flag.
That's a political act, not a war. A war entails two military forces combatting each other. This did not significantly occur until sumter.
But you attempt to dodge a big bullet here.
I beg to differ and in fact note that it is you making such an attempt by playing games to push back the war's starting date in order to save your hero Lincoln from the truth about what he himself said in his inaugural address.
You -know- unless you are blithering, that I was referring to at least 1848, when Congressman Lincoln drafted legislation to eliminate slavery in DC
Just as I was referring to March 4, 1861, when president lincoln endorsed an amendment to constitutionally protect and perpetuate slavery. So what's your point?
and when he was making speeches favoring the gradual elimination of slavery--well before the war.
Sure he was. But simultaneously he was making statements indicating somewhat different views on slavery before the war, and even openly endorsing an amendment that would have perpetuated slavery indefinately before the war.
How anyone can spout this contra-historical nonsense
That is a matter for you to consider asking yourself, as I am truly clueless as to how you could be so willfully blind to the documented historical fact that Lincoln was a flawed character just like anybody else, and his flaws included significant flaws in the area of slavery.
when our troops are in contact with enemies who would cut all our throats is beyond me.
And what exactly do you mean by that? Are you somehow suggesting that I am not entitled to historically debate Lincoln due to the fact that we are currently in a war? If so, your assertion is an absurd cheap shot and nothing more.
Profesions of the legality of unilateral state secession border on treason.
And assertions of politically motivated demagogic appeals to a current state of war in order to rescue oneself from the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the truth in a debate actively engages in stupidity. So what's your point?
And so does belittling our greatest president and statesman.
So I don't have a right to historically criticize Abe Lincoln based on the historical records of his political carreer? Excuse me for saying so, but who gave you the authority to take away that right from me? And since when does your pitiful little opinion of Lincoln constitute fact on which to ground a charge of treason?
I doubt you will answer me on this as you know as well as I do that you are behaving in an absurd manner. Calling names may work in your pre-school view of history. Sorry Walt, but this is the real world and pre-schoolers such as yourself need not apply. If you can't take the heat of the factually oriented arguments that I offer before you, well, you know the rest...