[PhilipFreneau]

>>>This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South. For example, all of the slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, were freed under the authority of the Emancipation Proclamation; freedom perhaps did not come until the Union Army arrived, but once this happened the slaves in that area were free. <<<

How convenient. The unabashed White Supremacist, Abraham Lincoln refused to free the slaves in areas where he had dictatorial control—where it would do the most good at the time. What a big-time hypocrite. The Emancipation Proclamation was a merely a political ploy—an attempt to give moral justification to an immoral war—a war that cost 625,000 American lives.

[csense]

You obviously pick your Historians like you pick your Presidents, without much thought at all

[BlackElk]

At least you are right about Lincoln. I suspect you may be likewise right about Hamilton supposing that you object to him too as I do. BUT, Woods appears to claim Herbert Hoover as a conservative when he was POTUS. That is patently absurd. Likewise, regarding Ron Paul as a conservative is simply absurd.

[GeronL]

This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South

So he was a dictator then? Or was this merely an announced goal that needed to pass Congress? A speech is not a legal authority

...

So, Missouri, a union slave state, didn't have to free its slaves?

I don't know if Lincoln was a "white supremacist" anymore than most whites of the north were at the time (they didn't have anything like equality for "free blacks" in the north, more like Jim Crow) but he didn't seem to see them as equals.