Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 12:07:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Emancipation Proclamation
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Was it Constitutional?
Yes
No
Show Pie Chart

Author Topic: Emancipation Proclamation  (Read 3877 times)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« on: November 08, 2004, 07:27:26 pm »
Ignore

If yes, please post the part of the Constitution that says the president of the United States is allowed to pass laws without any involvement from Congress whatsoever.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6065


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2004, 07:29:52 pm »
Ignore

The reason that Lincoln restricted the Proclamation to those states active in the rebellion is that Lincoln felt he could take such unilateral action in those states not currently recognizing the authority of the Union; the loyal Union states had certain rights that a Presidential Proclamation would have no Constitutional power over.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Vincent
azpol76
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


Political Matrix
E: 0.88, S: -2.26

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2004, 07:30:21 pm »
Ignore

My understanding is that it fell under his powers as comander-in-chief, As a tactical move designed to hurt the enemy. Notice that it did not apply in border states or already conquered areas.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2004, 07:35:46 pm »
Ignore

It dealt with "contraband," which was a legal act.  One of the few cases where being "property" was an advantage.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2004, 07:37:34 pm »
Ignore

Contraband? Explain.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29056
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2004, 07:50:13 pm »
Ignore

It is perfectly legal in a war to seize the property of an enemy.   Because of the way the EP was written it only seized enemy property as disposed of it.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2004, 08:19:13 pm »
Ignore

Yes. It was an act of war, a proclamation of 'surrender or else', and the president is the commander in chief. So, I suppose it would be constitutional.
Logged

PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2004, 09:12:04 pm »
Ignore

Yes, since it was a Presidential Proclamation that applied to only those states in rebellion AGAINST the United States Constitutiion.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2004, 12:55:50 am »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2004, 04:51:47 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2004, 04:55:51 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.


They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.
Logged
TexasGurl
texasgurl24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8551
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -8.91

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2004, 04:57:16 pm »
Ignore

It had little legal strength, but it earned the moral high ground for the yankees.
Logged

PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2004, 04:59:14 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.


They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.

Thats why in 1869 the Brits had to pay reperations to the United States.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2004, 05:10:29 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.


They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.

Thats why in 1869 the Brits had to pay reperations to the United States.

The CSS Alabama sunk more tonnage (for one ship) then any ship in US Naval History.
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2004, 08:53:53 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.


They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.

Thats why in 1869 the Brits had to pay reperations to the United States.

The CSS Alabama sunk more tonnage (for one ship) then any ship in US Naval History.

Oh yes. Raphael Semmes was an amazing naval commander. The Confederates had all the great commanders. Had they had the recources the North had the Civil War would have lasted 90 days.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15564
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2004, 09:01:32 pm »
Ignore

It had little legal strength, but it earned the moral high ground for the yankees.

Yesh.
Logged

Citizen of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2004, 09:19:37 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.


They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.

Thats why in 1869 the Brits had to pay reperations to the United States.

The CSS Alabama sunk more tonnage (for one ship) then any ship in US Naval History.

Oh yes. Raphael Semmes was an amazing naval commander. The Confederates had all the great commanders. Had they had the recources the North had the Civil War would have lasted 90 days.

Actually from all my research their resources were sufficient enough to win the war the major problem was the lack of internal railroads. Many of the tracks weren't even of the same gauge. The north had begun to standardize a gauge by that point in time.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15288
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2004, 05:54:59 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2004, 06:32:38 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2004, 08:06:42 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question. Was it constitutional? I say yes it was. A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional. As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion. Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question. Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

When you have a large blue army, you can.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2004, 01:23:28 am »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

When you have a large blue army, you can.

Yes, and that's how they forced their constitutional interpretation. Not throught he courts or congress. By force of bayonet.
Logged
ATFFL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5774
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2004, 08:24:04 am »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

When you have a large blue army, you can.

Yes, and that's how they forced their constitutional interpretation. Not throught he courts or congress. By force of bayonet.

And we all remember the South's great legal case for secession.  What was it called again?  Something something vs. Fort Sumter I believe.

They never tried to make a case for the legality of secession and they started the shooting to boot.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15288
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2004, 10:19:27 am »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

fair enough. 

as I said before, I don't think the SC legislature did anything illegal when it seceeded, only when it refused to relinquish US property.  The EP is another matter altogether.  If the US was trying to take over another country, and the UN hadn't been invented yet, then nothing it could do to that other country would really be illegal.  Still, your analogy is a good one, but as has been pointed out, might makes right, so legality is really not that important to history.  Victory is.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2004, 04:40:16 pm »
Ignore

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

fair enough. 

as I said before, I don't think the SC legislature did anything illegal when it seceeded, only when it refused to relinquish US property.  The EP is another matter altogether.  If the US was trying to take over another country, and the UN hadn't been invented yet, then nothing it could do to that other country would really be illegal.  Still, your analogy is a good one, but as has been pointed out, might makes right, so legality is really not that important to history.  Victory is.

US Property such as national parks and forts are given to the government by the states. The Government cant just take whatever land they want. THe states have to give them permission.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15288
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2004, 05:21:20 pm »
Ignore

So, in your estimation, the move against Fort Sumter was illegal.  Actually, there's a good case to be made that it was, and you have pretty much summed it up.

Then, doesn't it follow that the maintaining Navy bases on Vieques is illegal too, since PR doesn't want it there.  (yes, I'm aware that a portion of the island was ceded to PR by President Bush.  A good move, in my estimation, but what about the rest of it?)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines