[Copy of my post] Even though "Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed", he was not in favor of the institution, was he?
[Greg's post] Certainly he (and many others) was "not in favor of" it. Now, you've expressed below that you are "not in favor" of Azizi's postings and style. Should that be taken to mean that you plan her eradication her? Or perhaps you would post perhaps a dozen - or half a dozen - other things you yourself are "not in favor of" & indicate which are in immediate danger of annihilation.
No, Greg, don't be ridiculous; it should not be taken to mean any such thing, just as "anti-slavery" should not be taken to mean "abolitionist". In the pre-Civil War U.S., there were plenty of people who expressed dislike and even disgust for the "peculiar institution" but for economic and other reasons could not bring themselves to join the call for its end. As for Lincoln, of course he knew the law and the various interpretations about what Congress could or could not legally do, and he was convinced of one interpretation, but that had nothing to do with his sentiments about slavery itself, whatever those sentiments may have been. It would seem that he was in the "gee, I wish I could do something but my hands are tied" camp as long as the slave states were in the Union. Once they seceded, it appears that he had a legal "out": make war with the new country, defeat it, and re-expand the Union into the South under the victor's terms -- which included abolition.