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

To: wasp69; bedolido
The Emancipation proclaimation was in effect only over the areas in rebellion, because those were the only areas that Lincoln had direct authority to issue against. They were under military law, and he was CIC.

He could not issue the proclaimation in the North. Had he done so, it may have pushed the loyal slave states, such as Missouri, into joining the Confederate states. Emancipation in these places had to be done by Constitutional amendment, which Lincoln pushed for. It did not pass until after his murder by a Southern radical.

In short, President Licoln attempted to free those whom he had no control over and leave those in chains that he did.

Exactly the opposite. To his way of view, he had legal authority to free the slaves in the rebelling territories, but the freeing of slaves in the non-rebellious states was up to the legislatures of those states, or the establishment of a Constitutional provision to do so.

113 posted on 08/13/2003 11:27:03 AM PDT by LexBaird (Views seen in this tag are closer than they appear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: LexBaird
Sounds like he had good advice when he was pursuing his goal... He did his best to achieve his aim based on the law and he did not try to exceed his legal authority... Always glad we are a nation of laws and not men
114 posted on 08/13/2003 11:36:17 AM PDT by dwd1 (M. h. D. (Master of Hate and Discontent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

To: LexBaird; dwd1; wasp69; GOPcapitalist
Then why not free the slaves in rebellious states in areas that were under Union control?

On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order. But the proclamation did show Americans-- and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery. Lincoln had been reluctant to come to this position. A believer in white supremacy, he initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As pressure for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, however, Lincoln became more sympathetic to the idea. On Sept. 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary proclamation announcing that emancipation would become effective on Jan. 1, 1863, in those states still in rebellion. Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in America--this was achieved by the passage of the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution on Dec. 18, 1865--it did make that accomplishment a basic war goal and a virtual certainty.

The above italicized is from a Lincoln admirer and presents some flaws in your argument that Lincoln only acted "constitutionally". Lincoln acted pragmatically, strategically and politically. He freed the slaves when and where he did simply beacuse he wished to, to sate the Radicals, and most importantly to try to damage the infrastructure of the South at which he was at war.

118 posted on 08/13/2003 12:06:57 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | 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