|
Real0ne -> RE: Everything you know is a lie (8/7/2016 11:11:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
well, no he did not, the amendment did that the emancipation proclamation was slaves in confederate holdings only, trying to get them to join the fight, for the FED we were in desperate times.
no
The Emancipation Proclamation
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.
Now I wasnt aware a president had the authority to make proclamations contrary to the constitution.
Following General Fremont's martial law proclamation of August 1861, where he declared all slaves of disloyal owners to be free, we know that Lincoln rescinded the order based on constitutional concerns and out of fear that it would push the Border states into the Confederacy. Lincoln's revocation was subjected to severe criticism by some including long time friend Orville Browning.
On Sept. 22, 1861 Lincoln responded in a confidential letter to Browning's criticism where the president stated "[t]hat you should object to my adhering to a law, which you had assisted in making, and presenting to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this is a very small part. Genl. Fremont's proclamation, as to confiscation of property, and the liberation of slaves, is purely political, and not within the range of military law, or necessity. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply 'dictatorship.' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases---confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. http://civilwartalk.com/threads/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-legal.46780/
Thank you, but you have a problem, you just said no, and then went on to repeat what I just said. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of comprehension and mental illness.
Ya see since the constitution applies to law abiding united states, there is no constitutional protection applies to terrorists at war with the united states, or was none at that time, is mor e accurate.
Try again,
the EP only freed slaves in the states that seceded, not the remaining states.
the founders were terrorists you know.
The Emancipation Proclamation
quote:
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
I dont recall any part of the constitution stating the president has the authority to dicktate
|
|
|
|
