S
sukaii19
Guest
PLEASE HELP! Elaborate on your answer thanks!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did Lincoln Violate the constitution when he issued the emancipation proclamation?
I
illidan_816
Guest
No, during the Civil War, Lincoln had control over the north (of course). The north was losing badly against the south during this time. The north needed to do something drastic like The Emancipation. The Emancipation, if you didn't know already, freed the slaves ONLY in the south. This really hurt the south's economy and it put the North at an advantage.
R
Rea H
Guest
He didn't.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a statement that freed all the slaves in the rebellious states. Which meant, if states rejoined the union by will-they would be able to keep their slaves. It was a measure to get the union back together, as well as a way to get England to not give support to South.
Lincoln taking away Habus Corpus -now THAT was a violation of the constitution.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a statement that freed all the slaves in the rebellious states. Which meant, if states rejoined the union by will-they would be able to keep their slaves. It was a measure to get the union back together, as well as a way to get England to not give support to South.
Lincoln taking away Habus Corpus -now THAT was a violation of the constitution.
W
william_byrnes2000
Guest
The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order related to the President's capacity as commander in chief of the army and navy. Any area which was taken under military authority of the united states, after January 1, 1863 (that is captured areas) any persons living in servitude there would be then, thenceforward and forever free
(I know I keep quoting Lincoln, but if a guy turns a nice phrase, it deserves quoting)
Habeus Corpus is a different matter, he did try and use the special circumstances granted in times of rebellion or insurrection (Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2).
(I know I keep quoting Lincoln, but if a guy turns a nice phrase, it deserves quoting)
Habeus Corpus is a different matter, he did try and use the special circumstances granted in times of rebellion or insurrection (Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2).
C
Christopher T
Guest
i wouldn't saw he directly violated the constitution but i could see how it sould be construed that he did
the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves of course
i imagine that many slaves owners felt the slaves were their property and being slaves they were not entitled to the same rights. the fourth amendment to the constitution protects the people from unnecessary searches and seizures. part of the fifth amendment protects life liberty and propery form being taken without compensation. thus the slave owners would have viewed the slaves as propery and property is protected under the bill of rights which lincoln could have violated by freeing the slaves. but thats the beauty of the constitution: its vague
the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves of course
i imagine that many slaves owners felt the slaves were their property and being slaves they were not entitled to the same rights. the fourth amendment to the constitution protects the people from unnecessary searches and seizures. part of the fifth amendment protects life liberty and propery form being taken without compensation. thus the slave owners would have viewed the slaves as propery and property is protected under the bill of rights which lincoln could have violated by freeing the slaves. but thats the beauty of the constitution: its vague