Sure they did, just as they always do.
Your original criteria, found in post 251, stated the following:
"The only way you can show otherwise is in the contemporary record -- saying Lincoln appeared here and said thus and such on tariffs, not slavery. But you can't do that."
I met those criteria in post 252, but you changed them in 259 to state "Now you just need 174 more."
It is the same charade you played with rape, with murdered soldiers, with murdered civilians, with yankee slave traders, and with practically every other demand you ever make on this forum. You ride in here and demand that people dig up obscure details of history, such as rape victims names and dates, expecting nobody to take the time to do it. Assuming this to be so, you then declare that there were no rapes because nobody can name them, yet sure enough somebody comes along and names them, thus making you look like a fool. The second you realize this, rather than concede a defeat honorably or admit an error, you simply change the criteria and "name a rape victim" becomes "name rape victim under Sherman." "Name a confederate who was executed" becomes "name a civilian who was executed." And in this case, "identify a speech from Lincoln about the tariffs" becomes "identify 174 speeches from Lincoln about the tariffs." Your criteria constantly change, Walt, in what ammounts to nothing more than a bizarre and downright laughable attempt on your part to save face after you've been exposed as a fraud in front of your peers on this forum.
Your original criteria, found in post 251, stated the following:
My origial "criteria" was quoting Dr. McPherson in saying that Lincoln was a "one issue man", the issue being slavery. I noted that the "dominant, unifying" theme of Lincoln's speechs was an opposition to slavery. To that end, Lincoln gave 175 speeches in the period 1854-60.
If you can show that tariffs played a "dominant, unifying" role in Lincoln's thinking, you need to show it in the record, and quoting one speech is not going to make that case.
Walt
Your false god said you could and, by his own definition, did.
That is a flat lie. You quoted Lincoln:
"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
Looks like you've contradicted your idol, Walt. Better go repent before he gets angry!
But the very next --sentence-- in this speech turns your interpretation topsy-turvy:
"But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all of these things be "invasion" or "coercion?" Do our professed lovers of the Union, but who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion or invasion of a state? If so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be exceedingly thin and airy."
You cannot invade your own country, and Lincoln never said otherwise.
You posted this -exact-same-excerpt- before, and Non-Sequitur called you on it that time.
You will tell any kind of lie.
Walt