JDS--

The first part of your argument seems on point to me.  You write "Lincoln's
primary obligation was to defend and protect the Constitution," and that
certainly is a primary obligation of any President.

Your followup however reduces a fairly dense set of political and military
circumstances into a constitutional and moral judgment that is
questionable.  You imply that Lincoln's decisions contradicted his duty to
uphold the Constitution, and that he used "the military power of his office
to push the political agenda of his cabinet."

This, however, is not at all clear, when we examine the circumstances of
his decision making.  This is, in other words, an interpretation, and it
requires something more than sarcasm to sustain it.  You support your
interpretation by asking an  aggressive rhetorical question of your
opponent in this conversation--presumably Ms. Pemberton:  "I assume that as
a public school teacher you are at least somewhat familiar with the
Constitution?  It's an old document with a bunch of amendments housed down
at the National Archives a couple blocks from here."

Let me digress a moment to talk about your use of sarcasm rather than
argument, because I hope to persuade you that it is counterproductive.  I
am guessing that you choose to resort to sarcasm out of frustration, but I
don't think this is the right kind of forum for that kind of discourse.
While no doubt satisfying to write, this is not a rhetorical tactic likely
to persuade people who value rational discourse--no matter how justified
your frustration with your opponent in the argument.  It distracts from any
attempt to provide warrants for the interpretation you seek to advance.
Moreover, rational discourse requires civility, and sarcasm undermines
civility.  We all of us have a stake in preserving this list as a civil
forum for discussion of our history, even if we think the people we are
arguing with are foolish or misguided.

So--to return to the historical interpretation at hand.  Did Lincoln issue
the Emancipation Proclamation to push the political agenda of his cabinet,
and did his decision to do so constitute a misuse of his authority as
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America?  I
might add that the Emancipation Proclamation is also on display in that
shrine to the Founding down on the mall, alongside the Constitution of the
United States--a fact which must be understood as a statement by the
Archivist of the United States that the Emancipation Proclamation belongs
in the canon among our other foundational documents. So the presumptive
judgment of our current government is that Lincoln did in fact act
correctly and in a laudable fashion.  Just because our government says it
is right does not of course make it so--but as I will argue below, in this
instance our government is correct.

It is useful to recognize that the step--emancipation--was advocated by
numerous Union military commanders, including many who were quite racist,
as a matter of practical military policy.  The historical source to consult
here is Ira Berlin et. al., FREEDOM:  A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF
EMANCIPATION, 1861-1867, Series I, Volume I, THE DESTRUCTION OF SLAVERY.
As Berlin documents in exhaustive detail, Union commanders enjoyed a
substantial military advantage over their adversaries in numbers, which
Confederate military commanders sought to mitigate by mobilizing labor
battalions of slaves in order to construct fortifications and
entrenchments.  Thus, slaves were in fact military assets of the
Confederate government.  Union commanders recognized that slavery directly
contributed to the Confederate war effort and indirectly represented a
substantial threat to the lives of the men under their command.

In this light, Lincoln acted appropriately in issuing the Emancipation
Proclamation to end the constitutional crisis represented by southern
secession as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.  Indeed, to the extent
that we wish to criticize Lincoln's decisions as Commander in Chief, we
might wish to do so on the grounds that he did not act with sufficient
dispatch to preserve the lives of the soldiers fighting under his command.
And surely you would agree that that is one of the primary responsibilities
of the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as Commander
in Chief?

Best,
Kevin
--
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