VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:41:28 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
        Not true.  Lincoln later acknowledged in letters on the subject that
he may have lacked the authority to take the action he took, but that
sometimes ""a limb must be amputated to save a life...", and in his mind the
arguably illegal action of emancipation of the slaves was necessary to
protect the Union from destruction, which he viewed as a more important
Constitutional duty.  I would refer you to his letter of April 4, 1864 to Mr.
John Hodges, the editor of the Frankfort, Kentucky newspaper in which he
comes clean on this point and rationalizes the need for taking an action
contrary to his oath or office because in his mind it became necessary to
preserve the Union.  As Samuel Johnson once said, the road to Hell is paved
with good intentions, and while abolition was obviously something that needed
to be done, I am not sure that Mr. Lincoln's approach was either legal or the
best approach.  I note that he considered compensated emancipation, but
rejected it as too costly........and later suggested that this was poor
judgment in retrospect based on the cost in terms of lives and money of the
Civil War.

       As a lawyer who has in the course of his day to day practice occasions
to research and argue Constitutional issues, I know of no Constitutional
authority for the action that Lincoln took in emancipation.  There were no
war powers granted to him by Congress or otherwise that voided, or could
void, Constitutional protections other than the lifting of the requirement
for a writ of habeas corpus.  If you can refer me to such a grant of power
prior to January of 1863, I would be pleased to review it.  I would also be
pleased to hear his January 1863 authority for the action taken on
emancipation.  As you may know, the 13th Amendment came much later, or are
you arguing that a Constitutionally illegal action can be rectified nunc pro
tunc by a statute adopted at a substantially later point in time?  Or, are
you saying that presidents have the right to ignore their oaths to uphold the
Constitution when it suits their political agendas, or they otherwise feel
they don't have to do so?

JDS

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US