JDS--
You write that there is uniform, or close to uniform, opinion that the
Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional among Political Scientists
and Constitutional historians. In so doing, you reprise arguments made by
conservative or "copperhead" Northern Democrats at the time.
Let me quote you from the text I mentioned earlier, which I am reliably
informed must now be advertised as "*a* standard constitutional history
text" rather than (as it was some years ago) *the* standard constitutional
history text. Herman Belz et. al. write as follows: "Moderate Unionists,
accepting the validity of the proclamation as a war measure, said that any
legal effect it had would depend on its actual implementation by the
advance of Union arms, and [emphasis added] THIS WAS CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH."
(Belz et. al., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, 6th edition, pp. 232-326, quote
is from p. 325). Now I suppose you could simply dismiss this as the
writings of a bunch of liberal whacko historians out to revise the past in
defense of the New Deal and the Great Society, multiculturalism, and Bill
Clinton--but before you do so, you should do a little research into just
whom Herman Belz is, and just what he stands for. Belz is one of the most
respected conservative scholars working in the academy today, and simply
cannot be dismissed as a liberal academic writing revisionist history.
Given that Belz, on whom I have relied throughout my career as a dependable
and trustworthy authority on the Constitution, does not seem to share your
conclusion, and given that Professor Finkelman does not either, just whom
did you have in mind, when you say that most authorities today reject the
constitionality of the Proclamation?
Best,
Kevin R. Hardwick
--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone: 540/568-6306
Email: [log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
