Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Bonemaker
The emancipation proclamation affected only the confedrate states. Lincoln used it more as a weapon against the South rather than out of altruism. My understanding.

Lincoln had no authority to end slavery in states that were not in rebellion. That would require a constitutional amendment, something he often called for and worked to pass once the election of 1864 gave him the congressional majority that it would require. I'm always amused by people here who slam Lincoln for being a dictator and ignoring the law, then slam him for not being more dictatorial and ignoring more laws.

46 posted on 07/29/2019 2:11:03 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels."--Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Lincoln had no authority to end slavery in states that were not in rebellion.

And Lincoln declared them to be in "rebellion", but what they did and were doing was clearly not "rebellion", it was "Independence", which they had a right to have as stipulated in our own founding document, the "Declaration of Independence."

Lincoln accused them of rebellion in the same way modern Democrats accuse Trump of racism. They simply say it is so, and they repeat it over and over until the public accepts this claim.

That would require a constitutional amendment, something he often called for and worked to pass once the election of 1864 gave him the congressional majority that it would require.

You are correct that it would require a constitutional amendment, but such a thing was impossible in the 1860s without an end run around the valid constitutional amendment process.

This end run was accomplished by first illegally disenfranchising voters in their own states, and then threatening the legislature with even further military abuses of their population if they did not give Washington DC what they were ordered to give.

A lot of people want to pretend that the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments were valid amendments to the constitution, but the constitution was never intended to be changed through Washington DC control of puppet governments that would do the bidding of Washington DC.

That is dictatorship with a thin veneer of "process" slapped on it to disguise what was done.

67 posted on 07/30/2019 11:09:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

“That would require a constitutional amendment, something he often called for and worked to pass once the election of 1864 gave him the congressional majority that it would require.”

Lincoln could have proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in his first inaugural address, demanded a vote, and if successful, ended slavery without a shot being fired. And he would have too, if it had been in the economic and political best interest of his backers.

In fact, Lincoln himself could have introduced an amendment to abolish slavery much earlier when he actually served in Congress. And he would have too, if it had been in the economic and political best interest of his backers.

Without a shot being fired.


91 posted on 07/30/2019 12:48:37 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson