Sorry for the delay in responding. Work has a nasty habit of getting in the way.
I don't see that pointing out the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is splitting hairs. One, the Declaration, was essentially a declaration of war and the other, the Constitution, was -- and still is -- the framework for a Federal government. And the Declaration of Independence was
a precursor to the Constitution, but it was not
the precursor; that document was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation don't specifically reference slavery and the only possible reference is found in Article 4, Section 1 of that document that extends the privileges and immunities of citizenship to all "free citizens."
I find it interesting that you refer to the Divine Right of Kings in your defense of the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation mostly because it's my argument that Lincoln overreached his power -- that is, acted despotically -- in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (and suspending the writ of habeas corpus, see below). It seems to me that your argument is that the ends justify the means. To put it in a more modern context, would you today favor an Executive Order that abrogated the Second Amendment and outlawed private ownership of firearms thereby preventing another massacre similar to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School?
Lincoln also overreached his power in suspending the writ of
habeas corpus. You are correct that the suspension of the writ is authorized by the Constitution. However, you cite the wrong article. The provision for suspension of the writ is actually found in Article
1, Section 9. Article 1 defines the powers of Congress, Article 2 defines the powers of the Executive and Article 3 defines powers of the Judiciary. Check it out here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html So, Lincoln, acting on his own power, usurped power specifically granted to another branch of government and, by implication since those arrested did not have to be brought in front of a magistrate, usurped the power of the Judiciary also. Sort of sounds despotic to me.
Interesting (at least to me) side note: I learned today, while hanging out in the courthouse in St. Charles Parish, that Lincoln wrote only once about potentially granting suffrage to blacks and that was in a private letter to Louisiana Gov. Michael Hahn, Unionist governor of the state during the Civil War. See the text here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1072 Interesting to wonder what his position would have ultimately been had he not been assassinated.
Click to expand...