[vbmoneyspender]

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and be forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to people held as slaves in states that were in rebellion against the United States. To free slaves in states that were not in rebellion against the United States, a number of amendments to the Constitution had to be passed.

Is the good Congressman suggesting that the enforcement of the debt ceiling constitutes an act of rebellion against the Unites States, thereby giving Obama the power to void the debt ceiling?

[Sherman Logan]

The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to people held as slaves in states that were in rebellion against the United States. To free slaves in states that were not in rebellion against the United States, a number of amendments to the Constitution had to be passed.

Not really. By the time 13A went into effect, slaves remained in bondage only in KY (about 50,000) and DE (something <200). All others had previously been freed either by state action or by the Emancipation Proclamation.

The true incentive for 13A was not the relatively few remaining slaves in KY, it was the possibility (quite reasonably grounded) of a legal challenge to the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation. While Lincoln could proclaim anything he wanted, this did not of itself give the Proclamation legal and constitutional validity.

While in retrospect it seems unlikely the post-war SCOTUS would have rule the EP unconstitutional, it was a genuine concern at the time.