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