I suppose you will substantiate that allegation? Or would that be asking too much of you? I suspect the latter is the case, considering how frequently you throw out baseless accusations against fellow posters without ever bothering to substantiate them.
Yes, Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment to protect the domestic institutions of the states -- read slavery. Your note indicates how hard he worked to avoid war.
Not really. More than anything, it simply shows that he worked hard to keep the union intact. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to suggest that, at the time of the amendment, Lincoln had no idea the size of the war that was about to come. Many at the time including those close to Lincoln believed that, if it came at all, the war would be short and over in a few months, possibly even weeks.
What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed.
In what way did I "ignore" that assertion, Walt? In fact, as you have no doubt been presented with (though I cannot accurately say you have seen it in light of your tendency to willfully blind yourself to that which you do not wish to see), I have long noted Lincoln's expansion stance to have been the defining line of his political position on slavery during that time (though there is some evidence he bent it a little with discussions over New Mexico on the eve of the secession crisis). But other than that line, Lincoln wavered all over the place, often targetted to his audiences, with his policy issues on slavery. The amendment was a classic example of that.
That alone was enough to cause the war
But was it? I do not think it is a far cry to suggest that the war would have never happened had Lincoln not sent a fleet of warships to increase Sumter's garrison in April 1861, or had he never sent an invasion army to conquer Richmond in July 1861.
Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards.
No I don't, nor have I ever, Walt. To the contrary, I have long recognized Lincoln as a political creature of his times. I take no issue with the fact that he held less than modern positions on slavery, but rather only with the fact that this picture of Lincoln is rarely portrayed accurately. Further, those who glorify Lincoln, yourself included, seem to take great issue with it, even despite protests otherwise, when it is presented accurately. Rather than accept that fact, you blast all who dare make note of it with accusations not unlike the one you just made against me, often along side farcical red herrings such as your claim that I am somehow judging Lincoln by modern standards.
For his time, his stance was very advanced.
Not really. It was moderate at best in its approach compared to several of his contemporaries and heavily politicized as opposed to the moral and philosophical positions also held by many of his contemporaries. But that is another issue entirely.
He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery;
Not by permanently barring congress from amending the constitution to prevent any future interference with the institution whatsoever, which is precisely what his amendment did.
Oh, and by the way. I noticed you didn't bother to substantiate your "half truth" allegation anywhere in that post. You are sadly predictable.
I suppose you will substantiate that allegation?
Is part of your campaign of willful misrepresentation a strategy that people won't remember what was in the thread yesterday?
From yesterday:
I wrote:
What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed. That alone was enough to cause the war, because the slave owners knew that their "futures" in slaves and slave breeding would be compromised unless slavery were allowed to expand.
Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards. For his time, his stance was very advanced. He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery; to paraphase Churchill, he saw the end of the beginning plainly in sight. And that is what just drove the slave power nuts.
That is why they had to have war.
I did substantiate my "allegation". You seek to dissemble and obfuscate.
Walt