Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Bob Ackley:

 BA>> Replying to a message of Earl Croasmun to Bob Ackley:

 EC>>> Since the Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an executive
 EC>>> order, I would still feel that they have been around for a while.

 BA>> That proclamation was only in effect for those areas not
 BA>> under the control of the US government.  It did not affect
 BA>> slaves in Maryland, for instance.  It was also
 BA>> unConstitutional - as was Mr. Lincoln's war.

 BK>  Was it? Where is it forbidden?

There is *nothing* in the Constitution that requires *any* state to remain
in the union.  The act of forcing any state to remain in the union has no
support in the Constitution.  This country has not had a federal government
since 1865, it has had a *national* government - and there's a whale of a
difference between the two.

 BK>  Arguing whether it's constitutional is often a way of avoiding
 BK>  the question of was it the right thing to do.

Killing over 300,000 American citizens is the right thing to do?  And
you're all wound up over the deaths of 4,000 American troops caused by
the actions of Bush minor's administration?

 BA>> Being shot in the head was the best thing that could have
 BA>> happened to the man. It placed every single action he ever
 BA>> took beyond any criticism of any sort. It
 BA>> also prevented him from having to fight with the rabidly
 BA>> right wing congress, that
 BA>> was left to Andrew Johnson.

 BK>  And brought a quick end to with malice toward none.

Lincoln would have had just as much trouble with Stanton, Stevens,
et. al. as Johnson did.  It might not have gone as far as impeachment,
but there would have been a lot of trouble.

All Lincoln accomplished was to change slavery from a purely local and
matter to a national matter.  *Everybody* in this country is now enslaved
by our masters in Washington DC.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+