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:
paul finkelman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:22:06 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
He had no constitutional power to emancipate slaves in areas that were under the
authority of the United States.  I do not know why that is such a difficult
concept for you to grasp, but it seems to be, since this is about the 3rd time it
has been raised.

So, here it is again.

Constitution give US no power to regulate slavery or free slaves in the states.
Lincoln has no power to touch slavery in the states.  So, Fremont has no power to
end slavery in Missouri.  Hunter likewise cannot claim that the SC region he
controls in now under US control and also free the slaves.

The EP is a war measure, issued in Lincoln's capacity as Commander-in-Chief of
the Army.  It can only be directed against people in rebellion and against
territory controlled by people in rebellion.  Even at that, Lincoln has some
doubts about its constitutionality and worries that the Supreme Court (the
proslavery Taney is still Chief Justice) will overturn it if there is a case
based on it.   Thus, Lincoln also backs Thirteenth Am., which solves the problem.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74104-3189

phone 918-631-3706
Fax   918-631-2194
e-mail:   [log in to unmask]



[log in to unmask] wrote:

>         Would someone explain the reasons that Lincoln, the great
> emancipator, refused to allow both Fremont and Hunter to militarily
> emancipate the slaves in the regions that they militarily took control over
> in the South, if it was clearly within his power to allow them to do so under
> the same authority pursuant to which he issued the emancipation proclamation
> in 1863.  I assume that his personal commitment to emancipation, assuming he
> actually had one (as opposed to his political commitment, which seemed to
> come and go) was as strong in 1862 as in early 1863, so what was the problem
> in the cases of Fremont and Hunter?
>
>        I am also interested in how Lincoln rationalized his oath to uphold
> the Constitution when he was inaugurated in light of his emancipation of
> Southern slaves, the ownership of which was Constitutionally protected in
> 1863 at the time of the issuance of the EP.
>
> JDS
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

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