[WhiskeyPapa]

LOL!!!! I guess Professor Clark hasn't actually looked at the historical documentation found in many of the newspapers of the day(at least the ones the Tyrant didn't shut down). He takes his findings directly from the words of a politician, and a bad one at that, who changed his mind at least twice why the war was being fought.

Cite this documentation.

Walt

[Twodees]

Brilliant debating strategy, Walt. What it boils down to is saying, "I can prove that Lincon didn't do that. Just look at what he said here."

Clinton's defenders do the same thing. Exactly the same.

[billbears]

Oh come off it!! The switch? How about his first inaugural speech of approving of the original 13th Amendment, then being quoted as not wanting to be painted with the 'abolitionist brush', only two years later to sign the wishy washy Emancipation Proclamation which stated slaves were only free in the Confederacy if those states did not rejoin the union? And of course you can provide statements in the exact opposite(interestingly enough all after mid 1862 I would imagine when he changed his mind) which shows the duplicity with which this man based his everyday actions. Talk about covering every base. He made Clinton look like a hack!! The man never made a stand on anything!! Except taxes and then oh well, Katie bar the door, you better send me your money!!