tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257654362718515623.post5599166937858297598..comments2020-04-15T08:50:43.223-04:00Comments on A Legacy of Faithfulness: Liberty Day History Display from 2011--pt. 6Faithful Legacyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00947759665012380807noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257654362718515623.post-33269111612882115462011-05-07T15:36:51.235-04:002011-05-07T15:36:51.235-04:00In addition, the original Emancipation Proclamatio...In addition, the original Emancipation Proclamation issued on Sept. 22 stipulated that if the Confederate states were no longer "in rebellion" (i.e. if they reentered the Union) by January 1st, 1863, they could keep their slaves! Of course, not one Southern state reentered the Union by that time.<br /><br />Lincoln had no right to use an executive order in that manner; legitimate executive orders apply to the executive branch only. Lincoln essentially became a lawmaker as well as an executive--the tradition has been continued by numerous presidents since then (e.g. FDR).<br /><br />Vincit veritas,<br />Daniel R.<br />Psalm 27:1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257654362718515623.post-70623447715017559992011-05-06T11:31:31.258-04:002011-05-06T11:31:31.258-04:00So:
1. Lincoln had no right to issue The Emancipa...So:<br /><br />1. Lincoln had no right to issue The Emancipation Proclamation.<br /><br />2. It was unconstitutional in its end, slavery being out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.<br /><br />3. It was merely a war measure; and<br /><br />4. As such, the Emancipation Proclamation was a truculent, bloody, cowardly, godless order which had as its end a violent slave insurrection (in hopes of forcing the South to give a little bit on the battle front by having to send troops to attend to protecting the Southern interior.) At the same time, it was a lie, as its second purpose was to deceive the (ill-informed) British into thinking that the war was being fought over slavery when such was obviously not the case. Needless to say that the London Times and a lot of other British news sources didn't fall for it.<br /><br />5. It failed. Apparently Washington wasn't very well informed on the state of master-slave relations in the South.<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas,<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com