Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

You just answered your own question there. Abraham Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free slaves in the north. As has been explained to you before the official stance of the United Stares government is that the confederacy was nothing more than a rebellion. Therefore the president, under his constitutional powers to supress rebellion, issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Now this was done after the US congress issued a series of warnings to the people in rebellion, through the second confiscation act, that they had sixty days to surrender or face confiscation of their land and properties.
So the emancipation proclamation was constitutional.


359 posted on 10/14/2018 4:19:44 PM PDT by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]


To: OIFVeteran
Now this was done after the US congress issued a series of warnings to the people in rebellion, through the second confiscation act, that they had sixty days to surrender or face confiscation of their land and properties. So the emancipation proclamation was constitutional.

An act of congress cannot override a very specific constitutional clause. You must amend it. Article IV, *REQUIRES* slaves to be turned back to their masters if held by state law. It does not allow congress to override it by "confiscation acts".

384 posted on 10/15/2018 7:56:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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