# Was the Emancipation Proclamation Unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2022, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269 "2022-06-16T00:17:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/41 "2022-06-17T13:16:30Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > And again, the very idea that historical figures need to “apologize” for anything is silly. These aren’t idols or targets of worship, these were men from the past. History is useful as it lets us understand the past, but trying to apply morality of the present to the past simply serves no purpose. You cannot fix the morality of people long dead, and understanding key aspects of learning history, like the causes and effects of events, generally is actually made much worse by trying to see history through a modern lens. I agree with all of this, with one caveat. If someone argues that we should base policy TODAY based on what the Founding Fathers thought when they were alive, then it IS appropriate to judge their beliefs in the context of today. Not in the sense of deciding whether the FF were “good” or not, but in the sense of deciding how much weight to give their opinions and beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/42 "2022-06-17T13:33:31Z")
Not sure whether you’re aware but “apoligists” refers to apologetics, not people apologizing. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/43 "2022-06-17T13:42:23Z")
What? No. An apologist (which you appear to have misspelled) is generally defined this way: > a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial: Apologetics refers to a much more narrow philosophical (often theological) concept. [What is Apologetics? - Grace Theological Seminary - Christian Apologetics](https://seminary.grace.edu/what-is-apologetics/) You appear to be the one confused on word usage. ---
**Author:** ![Ynnad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4491bb/32.png) [@Ynnad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ynnad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/44 "2022-06-17T13:55:46Z")
History is complicated. There were numerous residents of the purported Confederate States of America who were staunch Unionists. Some of these Unionists even enlisted in and fought for the Union army. Others formed or attempted to form alternate pro-Union state governments. And a few of them owned slaves! ---
**Author:** ![Ynnad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4491bb/32.png) [@Ynnad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ynnad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/45 "2022-06-17T14:23:06Z")
I think several of the posters in this thread are conflating “constitutional or unconstitutional” with “right or wrong.” I think we would all agree that slavery is wrong. The original question has more to do with what were the constitutional powers of the U.S. president in the 1860s. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/46 "2022-06-17T14:28:32Z")
To add to all of this, we have the Corwin Amendment > No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Ignoring the fact for a moment that it was the President not Congress that issued the Emancipation Proclamation, if the Federal government couldn’t end slavery then why need a Constitutional Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/47 "2022-06-17T14:51:16Z")
Right when someone is called an apologist, it’s a reference to religious apologetics, not someone saying they’re sorry for something. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/48 "2022-06-17T15:44:25Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > If we believe, as you seem to suggest, that the CSA seceded and became an independent sovereign nation that was “at war” with the United States, then you’re obviously right. There should be no constitutional implications for depriving foreign nationals of their property on foreign territory during times of war. > > Of course, that premise is somewhat at odds with what the federal government thought it was doing and how the dominant historical narrative has viewed the conflict. A president can invoke war powers in the case of a large insurrection as well as in a war against another recognized nation. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/49 "2022-06-17T16:44:19Z")
Article I for example notes that one of the reasons that Habeas Corpus can be suspended is “Rebellion” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/50 "2022-06-17T17:35:52Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Right when someone is called an apologist, it’s a reference to religious apologetics, not someone saying they’re sorry for something. That is one meaning, but not the only meaning. There is a more general, non-theological meaning: > [@](#): > > ## Definition of _apologist_ > > **:** one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something > > ## Examples of _apologist_ in a Sentence > > Recent Examples on the Web > > Mastriano has also worked in the state legislature to set aside Joe Biden’s victory and has been a tireless _apologist_ for Trump’s efforts to sideline democracy.— Philip Elliott, _Time_, 18 May 2022 > **[Definition of APOLOGIST](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist)** > > someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism… See the full definition ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/51 "2022-06-17T17:47:55Z")
Sry if I’m being unclear but that’s I was trying to say - when people say apologist they’re using a general term that references religious apologetics specifically. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/52 "2022-06-17T17:54:47Z")
No, they aren’t. They are sometimes doing that. They are not always doing that. In fact in my experience most modern users of the word apologist aren’t using it to mean it in that way. That being said a lexical argument about a word isn’t the topic of this thread, so I’ll speak no further on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/53 "2022-06-17T18:05:39Z")
I mean reference the way 3 strike policy refers to baseball, mot to mean that all usage of the term is literally talking about baseball. ---
**Author:** ![Mallard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Mallard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mallard)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2022, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/54 "2022-06-17T18:10:13Z")
This would be a good question for Clarence to ask Ginni. 😬 ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2022, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/55 "2022-06-18T03:33:00Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > That’s like saying “monarchies weren’t common because only a very small percentage of people were monarchs.” That isn’t how people normally talk about things or understand things. Slavery was a common practice. You’re implying a layer of distinction that is entirely optional, and then treating it as mandatory. Saying something is common does not mean “a majority of the people” practiced it, and that applies to basic use of the language. Let’s go with your monarchy example. And let’s keep in mind we’re talking about how widely slavery was practiced. What exactly does it mean to practice slavery? Does my living within a hundred miles, or even a hundred yards, of someone who thinks they can (and allegedly does) own another person and their descendants mean that I myself am practicing slavery? I think not. There is the institution of slavery, and there is the practice of slavery. Likewise, there is the monarchy as a system of government, and there are the actual monarchs. Monarchy, like the institution of slavery, might have been widespread throughout history (might), but _actual monarchs_ and the _actual practice of slavery_ were much more limited. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > And again, the very idea that historical figures need to “apologize” for anything is silly. And, as noted, you have apparently missed what the word “apologetics” means, and also who exactly I am accusing of being an apologist. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > An apologist (which you appear to have misspelled) is generally defined this way: > > > a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial: The fact that you apparently get this definition leads me to wonder how you could possibly have missed my meaning. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2022, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/56 "2022-06-18T04:11:53Z")
And now just to bring it back around again to the OP. If I were to grant that it were even possible for one person to be the property of another, to the point that even the descendants of the alleged “property” would themselves be property, I could probably craft an argument to support the proposition that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. Although that might be because I am viewing history through the lens of the equal protection clause, and of course the equal protection clause didn’t come around until the 14th amendment, so maybe it’s not so obviously unconstitutional after all. But that’s only if I grant that people of recent African ancestry could in fact be owned as property under the Constitution. I can only imagine that to be the case if I also imagine that the Constitution would have permitted all those belonging to racial classes that are in every way equal to White Anglo Saxon Protestants (or Englishmen and their descendants in America as the founders might have said) could also be enslaved (and have their children be likewise born into slavery, in perpetuity). And if someone wants to make that argument—that the Constitution could have accommodated the enslavement of Thomas Jefferson and his descendants in perpetuity (I mean, except the descendants he had through the rape of a slave woman who could not meaningfully consent, that is), then okay. I guess it follows you could also make an argument that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. But I cannot seriously imagine that, were you to put the question to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, “In America, under the Constitution, could anyone equal to a man of English descent, born in this country, be subjected to slavery as the people of Africa are by your own household?” that they would have said anything other than “Not only no, but hell no. No man who is the equal of an Englishman, now an American, could ever be a slave under the laws of this country.” It is on that basis, my presumption that the founders would to a man have been anti-slavery for anyone who was equal to themselves, that I must therefore conclude that their allowance for African American slavery was based on an error in fact, and that under the law of the land—the Constitution—they could not actually be enslaved, and they were only permitted to be _treated_ as enslaved by lawmakers for so long as that error of fact remained predominant (and likely would have continued on in such a state, but for the 13th amendment). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/57 "2022-06-19T03:48:41Z")
Now do the 3/5 compromise. Plug that in to your analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/58 "2022-06-19T16:20:18Z")
And indentured servitude. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/59 "2022-06-19T16:48:28Z")
Are… are you trying to argue that slavery was never practiced in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269/60 "2022-06-19T16:50:34Z")
I think they’re trying to say that it was all just a big misunderstanding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-emancipation-proclamation-unconstitutional/966269.md?page=4)