[wagglebee]

Lincoln could have pushed for an emancipation of slaves in the loyal states, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. He did not.

Nonsense, the border states were not in rebellion and to abolish slavery there would have been unconstitutional.

I did not, ever, say that I oppose the goal of a Human Life Amendment.

No, you label those who do as "radicals".

We will not get anyone who is less radical than Sebelius.

Daschle was far less radical.

[Kansas58]

Lincoln still had the ability to push the loyal states for a Constitutional Amendment, he did not.
Lincoln, by the way, suspended habeus corpus and did a number of things that would not be considered “Constitutional” today. He even arrested a Democrat politician for seditious speech!
Also, Lincoln had the authority to simply DRAFT all of the adult slaves, in the Loyal states, into the Northern Army. He did not do so.
Lincoln played politics.
I support what Lincoln did.
At the time, you would have been one of the abolitionists calling Lincoln a “copperhead” or a traitor, for not doing it the way you wanted it done!

[Kansas58]

Lincoln could have had Congress overturn the Dred Scott decision, rather easily.
He could have limited the jurisdiction of the courts.
He did not do so because Lincoln wanted the support of the border states, the loyal states that had slaves.
Lincoln played politics, he was a master at politics.
Abolitionists, in Lincoln's day, often called Lincoln a “traitor” and abused him, verbally.
Just as some prolifers, today, tend to eat their own!

[Kansas58]

It is radical for anyone to think that ONLY the
Human Life Amendment approach will advance the cause. This is my position. It has always been my position.

“Daschle was far less radical” LOL, not really.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200410221133.asp