Replies

It's not your concern because you are not interested in a true interpretation of these events.

No Walt. It is not my concern as historically speaking, evidence exists only to the degree that it permits speculation about Lincoln's motives for his lie and little more. I have already speculated to that end, and see no point or capability carrying it any further.

That having been said, I need only note the simple fact that Lincoln's motive for lying bears no relevance to the fact that he did tell a lie in and of itself. It may explain that lie, but it in no way negates or establishes the fact that the lie was made.

You are the one caught in a lie

Again, please substantiate that allegation. Otherwise, I may again reject it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. It's a simple as that.

not President Lincoln.

To the contrary. Lincoln was familiar with the Corwin amendment before March 4th. On March 4th, Lincoln publicly denied familiarity with the Corwin amendment. Therefore Lincoln was lying.

You cannot prove that he saw this language.

To the contrary. Lincoln met with Corwin on February 26th to convince Corwin to substitute the Seward language for the Adams language. Prerequisite for Lincoln being able to do so and inherent to his doing so is a familiarity with that which he seeks to be substituted. If Lincoln did not know X, he could not have directed Corwin to substitute X for X would be unknown to him, and therefore could not be the subject of a request made by Lincoln.

Simply put, in order to seek to substitute the Seward text one first has to be familiar with the Seward text's existence. Therefore Lincoln had to have known the Seward text, which was the amendment itself. To know it was inescapable to the situation. Again, my invitation remains to you to demonstrate otherwise, which you have not done, refuse to do, and could not do if you wanted to. Therefore, my reasoning stands.

You attempted to belittle Lincoln

No, only introduce a little historical honesty onto the record of a dishonest president.

and you smeared yourself.

If that is so, please establish how. Otherwise, your statement is again rejected. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That having been said, I need only note the simple fact that Lincoln's motive for lying bears no relevance to the fact that he did tell a lie in and of itself.

You can't prove that. It's an assumption on your part. Had you said, "Lincoln was probably lying" you'd be in the clear.

Now all you've done is show that running down the greatest American and thereby the whole country is more important to you than telling the truth.

Walt