The right to life and constitutional law.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The EP had done plenty in terms of real, concrete, meaningful results for blacks in the South during the war, and had indefinite, positive, repercussions after the war ended.

It is awfully telling that the EP only applied to those areas under Southern control and not Northern areas. Let's be serious now, the reasons for it were entirely political. Any other attributes are total mythology.

And you continue to illustrate your ignorance about the power behind the Emancipation Proclamation.

Your point that it applies to areas where Lincoln didn't have direct authority dodges my point that black slaves WERE in reality, directly affected by the EP. My point is validated by actual historical events and evidence -- you're just pulling this denigrating remark about the EP out of your ass.

[MrFun]

And as far as the EP being a political act, what did Lincoln gain politically?

If anything, the Republican party suffered a serious setback in the state elections of 1862 before the shock of the EP could have a chance to fade away. The combined effects of military setbacks and the EP cost the Republican party serious losses in 1862 -- Lincoln took a big gamble with his EP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please

You are just upset that I've upset your carefully crafted mythology.

Black slaves tried to leave the Confederacy even more than they had before. Which was part of the plan, to weaken the Confederacy. It was one of the indirect effects of the EP which were forseen.

It wasn't done so blacks would be better off. It was done to weaken the Confederacy. It was done so the Confederacy may lose some slaves, but mostly to keep England and France out of the war. That was the main point, as Zkribbler alluded to.

If Lincoln really cared about the slaves, why exactly did the EP apply to where he didn't have any authority? You keep dodging that point. He freed the slaves in areas OUTSIDE of Union controll! In areas he had no soveriegnty over! Now why would he carefully construct the document that way?

Could it be for political reasons?! Nah.. that couldn't be it. Lincoln really wanted to free all the slaves, but.. uh... forgot to put the Union controlled areas in it... right?

As stated in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation itself had limited immediate effect upon slavery, except as territory in Confederate states came under Union control. Slaves in the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia) which remained loyal to the Union were not affected. Secretary of State William Seward commented on this by remarking, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Had any seceding state rejoined the Union (or simply returned its congressmen to Washington) before it took effect, it would have been in the same position as the border states and could have kept slavery, at least temporarily (although Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia all went on to abolish slavery by their own internal political processes even before the ratification in 1865 of the Constitution's 13th amendment which outlawed slavery uniformly throughout the entire nation).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And as long as we are quoting Blackstone

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.

I guess we'll have to assume Blackstone correct because of his reputation?

IF it was ONLY IS saying X is so, and Blackstone sayng X is not so, then, yes, Id go with Blackstone. Which is not the logical equivalent of saying Blackstone is always right. (though Im not sure the distinction he makes above doesnt have some merit for certain times in British history)

[lord of the mark]

a significant amount of confed territory was already under union control in Jan 1863.

The EP excluded the border states in part for constitutional reasons (there was no legal basis for abolition by executive fiat there) and in part for prudential reasons - to avoid alienating those critical states more than was necessary. Even so, the EP was not popular in the border states.

Lincoln, unlike the abolitionists, was cautious and didnt put ending slavery above preserving the union. But I think its fairly clear from his private communications that he considered slavery a bad thing, and wanted to improve the standing of blacks.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well Maryland almost left at the beginning of the war when everyone was leaving, but Lincoln basically put the state under martial law. I don't think Maryland had much power late in the war to leave, what with Union troops all over the state. It had at least less power to leave than it did before the war.

IIUC, there was a Fed army unit in Baltimore. That was about it, there werent union troops all over the state. I also dont think the state was under martial law, only Baltimore.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
.

Black slaves tried to leave the Confederacy even more than they had before. Which was part of the plan, to weaken the Confederacy. It was one of the indirect effects of the EP which were forseen.

Black slaves ran to union lines. Where their status was unclear, and a matter of heated dispute. Some union officers actually wanted to return them. Some wanted to use them, while holding them in trust for their owners, IIUC. Some wanted to distinguish between those who had fled pro-union and pro-confed owners. Fremont, who wanted to consider them all free, got into trouble for his stance.

The EP meant that all would be considered free, forever, and this was an important change in union policy.

[lord of the mark]

its quite interesting to see how when the thread shifts from constitutional law to civil war history, where Mr Funs knowledge far exceeds IS's, IS's tone and approach does not change.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I pulled out Garry Willis's Inventing America last night. In this book, Willis analyzes the origins of various parts of the Declaration and explains what they mean.

The "inalienable rights" phrase, Jefferson got from a philopher named Henderson. Henderson's point was that human beings must act morally, thus they cannot give up their lives (e.g. suicide) or their freedom (e.g. sell themselves into slavery), because both death and slavery deprive a man of the freedom he needs to act morally.

There was no discussion on the state's power to take away life or liberty as punishment for a crime. My best guess is that Henderson/Jefferson would explain that taking a man's life or liberty is a proper punishment for one who has proven he cannot act morally.

What is Henderson's first name? I tried to look him up in wikipedia. I did find this about "inalienable rights" though. It seems to back up what LotM is claiming.

The concept of inalienable rights originates from the concept of natural rights formulated during the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Classical Liberal thinkers reasoned that each man is endowed with (God-given) rights, most importantly, the right to life and the right to liberty. However, they reasoned that the natural state of absolute freedom causes anarchy. Eventually each individual forms an implicit social contract, ceding his or her right to the authority to protect his or her right from being abused. For this reason, almost all classical liberal thinkers, for example, accepted the death penalty and incarceration as necessary elements of government. However, some argued against slavery because there is no way a person can consent to being enslaved in exchange for protection. Consequently, the classical liberals reasoned that people have the right to rebel against tyrants who arbitarily abuse natural rights.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Please

You are just upset that I've upset your carefully crafted mythology.

Black slaves tried to leave the Confederacy even more than they had before. Which was part of the plan, to weaken the Confederacy. It was one of the indirect effects of the EP which were forseen.

It wasn't done so blacks would be better off. It was done to weaken the Confederacy. It was done so the Confederacy may lose some slaves, but mostly to keep England and France out of the war. That was the main point, as Zkribbler alluded to.

If Lincoln really cared about the slaves, why exactly did the EP apply to where he didn't have any authority? You keep dodging that point. He freed the slaves in areas OUTSIDE of Union controll! In areas he had no soveriegnty over! Now why would he carefully construct the document that way?

Could it be for political reasons?! Nah.. that couldn't be it. Lincoln really wanted to free all the slaves, but.. uh... forgot to put the Union controlled areas in it... right?

Contrary to the Southern mythology that Lincoln was a would-be dictator, Lincoln was a serious proponent for supporting constitutional law and sought to operate within its confines as much as possible.

He knew that he could not unilaterally abolish slavery because of the antebellum tradition that the states were to be left to decide for themselves on whether or not to accept slavery as a domestic institution. He didn't intervene because he had no concern for blacks -- rather, he didn't intervene because he truly believed that it would have been blatantly unconstitutional to do so.

Lincoln morally opposed slavery starting during his early legal and political career in the 1830s even if he may not have initially fostered genuine concern for blacks, or believed they were equal to whites. Over the years, his opinion of race in general changed to the point that just before his assassination, he was willing to extend equal suffrage to blacks and to find some way to prevent the judiciary from ruling against the EP so that abolition of slavery would remain permanent, on solid legal standing.

Really -- you should try reading books on Abraham Lincoln rather than conduct a five minute "research" from an online source such as wikipedia.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good Lord is Imran still tilting at windmills?

[MrFun]

Another point about Lincoln's change over time in regards to race -- he corresponded with, and spoke with black figures as equals -- also, he became the first president in U.S. history to invite blacks to the White House as dignified equals.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Good Lord is Imran still tilting at windmills?

Imran loves receiving a good kicking every now and then through pwnage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=MrFun]Contrary to the Southern mythology that Lincoln was a would-be dictator, Lincoln was a serious proponent for supporting constitutional law and sought to operate within its confines as much as possible.[/q]

Hehehehehe... Yeah, his jailing of newspaper men who critisized his handling of the war was very Constitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court struck him down after the fact.

Over the years, his opinion of race in general changed to the point that just before his assassination, he was willing to extend equal suffrage to blacks and to find some way to prevent the judiciary from ruling against the EP so that abolition of slavery would remain permanent, on solid legal standing.

Ah yes, Lincoln as a lone crusader for equal rights for blacks. I believe you'll find, amazingly, that Lincoln's position on blacks changed as the radical Republicans gained more and more power and Thaddeus Stevens was able to get more and more of his way. Lincoln was a great politican and did see where the winds were blowing, though. You have to give him that. Though his change of opinion from sending blacks back to Africa to giving them equal rights happened pretty quickly.

Imran loves receiving a good kicking every now and then through pwnage.

You do know what the phrase means, right? I'll give you a hint:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/383100.html

Meaning

Attacking imaginary enemies.

or:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Tilting+at+windmills

tilt at windmills (literary)

to waste time trying to deal with enemies or problems that do not exist.

[lord of the mark]

http://www.rense.com/general63/friend.htm