Emancipation Proclamation

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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 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.