Abraham Lincoln used an executive order to pass Emancipation Proclamation

[kentuck]

For the historians here:

Did Lincoln receive similar criticism from the Democrats, as Obama has received for his executive order on immigration??

Was he also threatened with impeachment?

[H2O Man]

1. Great call!

Way recommended.

This is a valuable bit of information. Thank you!

[merrily]

2. Yes, but that was under his war powers AND he followed it up with the 13th amendment.

[immoderate]

3. He probably would be impeached today.

--imm

[merrily]

11. He was assassinated. Isn't that enough?

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Technically, it was a Presidential Proclamation vs an EO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_proclamation

Not to be confused with Executive order.

A presidential proclamation is a statement issued by a president on a matter of public policy. They are generally defined as, "The act of causing some state matters to be published or made generally known. A written or printed document in which are contained such matters, issued by proper authority; as the president's proclamation, the governor's, the mayor's proclamation."

In the United States, the President's proclamation does not have the force of law, unless authorized by Congress. If Congress were to pass an act, which would take effect upon the happening of a contingent event, and subsequently the President proclaimed that the event happened, then the proclamation would have the force of law. Generally, there are two types of proclamations issued by the U.S. President, “ceremonial,” which designate special observances or celebrate national holidays, and “substantive,” which usually relates to the conduct of foreign affairs and other sworn executive duties. These may be, but are not limited to, matters of international trade, the execution of set export controls, the establishment of tariffs, or the reservation of federal lands for the benefit of the public in some manner.

Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical tool for policy making because they are considered to be largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, their issuances have led to important political and historical consequences in the development of the United States. George Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793 and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 are some of America's most famous presidential proclamations in this regard.

That said, what President Obama did was not extraconstitutional...

[Major Nikon]

10. Executive Orders in the sense that we use the term today, didn't exist back then

[former9thward]

5. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military order not an Executive order.

Lincoln did the EP in his role as Commander in Chief not as President. That is why the EP did not cover all slaves. It just covered slaves in areas controlled by confederate troops. Areas in the north controlled by the Union were not covered by the EP and slaves were not freed by that order. It applied to 3 milion slaves under confederate control. One million were left as slaves that were under union control.

[kentuck]

6. Thanks!

I had read elsewhere that it was an executive order. And is there any difference in an executive order and an executive action, as the President called his latest decree?

[former9thward]

9. No difference between action and order.

Just Obama's use of words. Both are signed documents.

[merrily]

12. The EP was the equivalent of an Executive Order. As stated above, it was under Lincoln's war powers.

And he followed up with the 13th Amendment. And, while he did not get impeached, he did get assassinated.

He probably did not get impeached because most of those who disagreed with the EP had already seceded and therefore were not in the house to impeach him

[Major Nikon]

14. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive

For example, see Executive Order 9981.

[former9thward]

17. No they aren't exclusive.

But what Obama is doing is taking executive action on laws which have already been passed by Congress. Lincoln made the EP on his own as CIC. Congress had no input. And Lincoln took blowback from the so-called Copperhead Democrats who accused him of subverting the Constitution among other things.

[unblock]

7. well, they the entire south seceded because they thought he might try something like this....

if they thought they could prevent it by filibuster and/or impeachment no doubt they would have.

[world wide wally]

13. Do you think there's any chance they might secede again?

(fingers crossed)

[unblock]

15. no, that rhetoric plays well in some places, but they'd sooner go to war.

but then, why would they? they're winning and are getting further and further entrenched.

we'll see how things play out in 20 years or so as the demographics shift. but remember, the interests of a powerful minority of the population can control the majority for a very, very long time before the majority finally rebels.

[world wide wally]

16. So, no such luck, huh?

Damn

[Savannahmann]

18. Are you sure you want states to secede?

I'm only asking because of the effect it would have on the nation that remained.

Take the Red States on the map, and say they depart the United States. What would you do for food? Since it includes Iowa and Kansas, both huge agricultural states. The loss of Texas and Louisiana for refinery operations would drive the price of gas into the stratosphere in the remaining US. A lot of auto manufacturing is in the Red States these days, and in Mexico and Canada. Kentucky makes cars, Indiana, and Texas all have car plants.

Then there are ports. Southern Ports conduct a huge amount of business, and much of that is loaded onto rails and shipped elsewhere, including to the Blue states that you seem to think would be better off without those damned Red states.

So what would New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and the other Northern States use to heat their homes this winter without the oil refined in the Southern States? Oh, it'll be fine, and the prince couldn't go up that much. Besides, the government can just seize that which is in the current storage tanks right? Besides, if some people freeze to death so you can have the joy of waving good bye to the Rethugs in the south, that's a small price to pay.

Cattle? Beef is already expensive, and then it would go completely out of sight when you had to pay tariffs for the food. The same with Pork, and a lot of other meat and dairy products.

Yeah, but you'll have California, and they have farms that are essentially shut down due to the drought. Idaho is Red, so that means Potatoes are going to be scarce.

You might want to think about this a bit. You do realize for example, that most military bases are in the "red states". The navy bases may not be, but airforce, and army absolutely are.

?w=550&h=303

Well, that's OK, those rednecks probably wouldn't want an army would they?

I couldn't find anything but this to show what is basically true, but here you go.



So you would have Southern states with military bases filled with majority southerners, and others from the regions that you want to secede, and this is going to be a good thing in your mind.

Economically, it would be painful. It would take years to arrange stable imports of vital materials at prices the public could afford. Manufacturing would suffer, energy would suffer. Good news is that taxes collected versus what is paid out would increase.

This chart shows which states get the most in Federal Taxes compared to what their citizens pay in.



So best case scenario there is that South Carolina waits all of six months before selling access to some of the most advanced weapons systems.

[unblock]

22. secession does not necessarily mean a cessation of trade.

hypothetically, were it to happen at all, and were it to happen peacefully, then the two resulting nations would instantly become each other's largest trading partner.

there might be some additional costs (or not, if we were to form a trading union similar to the european union), but for the most part trading would be not largely be affected.


now, if war were to happen, that's another story. it's not clear that that would happen, largely because it's not clear how secession would actually happen in the first place. i continue to see it as at least 99% rhetoric and at most 1% plausible.

[world wide wally]

23. For one thing, we would be much further along on the development of alternative energy. If it

wasn't for the disproportionate influence of those states. We would still have farm states throughout the Midwest and California. There is always trade with other countries. The southern states suck more money out of the system than they put in, while blue states are the opposite. We could probably even cut back on the military if not for so many conservative warmongers. I could go on about social issues and international relations if I wanted. As far as southern ports go, in reality, we could just take them if we felt so inclined if push came to shove.
All in all, our country and the world would be far better off with these small minded people forced to live in a world of their own making where there are more guns than brains. They could thump their Bibles all day while they hunted "furners". It would like heaven for them and just a much better country for the rest of us.

Please accept that this is written tongue in cheek, but I am personally extremely offended that the most illiterate, small minded people in the country have more representation and influence over national policy than the rest of us. Yes, Founding Fathers"; your idea of equal numbers of Senators regardless of state population hasn't worked out too well.

[raging moderate]

31. Um, that could change again, you know.

One reason the North won the Civil War was that they did have more soldiers and weapons. I always marvel at the number of Southerners who assume that all Northerners are effete city snobs, and that nobody in the city bakes or cans or goes hunting or fishing or knows about guns or tools or farming or forests.

[nxylas]

8. Not an argument that's likely to impress baggers

Most of them hate Lincoln almost as much as they hate Obama.

[Recursion]

19. Democrats definitely weren't fond of Lincoln

Was he also threatened with impeachment?

He was shot in the back of the head.

[world wide wally]

25. I thought everyone realized by now that the Democratic and Republicans parties have completely

reversed their political philosophies since the Civil War.
Did you know that even the north and south poles have reversed their magnetic pulls as well over the course of Earth's history?

[Ykcutnek]

20. I made this point on Twitter last night...

And was told by a teabagger that Lincoln was wrong and deserved to be killed.

[davidn3600]

21. The political parties were kind of a mess during the war

You had the Democrats and the Republicans (a very young party at the time), but there were a lot of factions in both. There are books that have been written solely on that topic.

If you are looking for a correlation to today's two polarized parties, you won't find it. You can't really compare it to today. They both had different philosophies. But on many issues that we recognize today, the parties today are reversed from back then. In other words, you'd likely be a Republican if you were alive in 1860.

[SoCalDem]

24. and it got him assassinated

:

[raging moderate]

26. I seem to remember that Lincoln's second Presidential election was NOT as a Republican!

My books are packed, so I can't check on the details in Team of Rivals. However, I think I recall reading that South-appeaser General McClellan was selected by the Republicans as their candidate that year, and Lincoln was selected by a new group (called the Liberty Party, or the Freedom Party, or something like that). Lincoln, by that time loved by many, won anyway.

[onecaliberal]

27. Eventually started the civil war

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

28. He was recognizing the human rights they were being denied

I'm not sure that it is a human right to cross a border without consequence.

So, I don't see the comparison in this instance.

[sweetapogee]

30. not really

Lincoln issued the EP for mainly one reason: to keep several European countries such England and France from recognizing the Confederacy. Prior to Sept. 1862 the Union forces were not doing well on the battlefield. He waited for a "victory" which he kinda got at Antietam (Sept 17, 1862) and 5 days after the battle issued the EP.

Some of the hostility of Lincoln's EP might be due to the fact that Antietam was the bloodiest single day of the civil war. Folks in both the north and south were struggling with the staggering losses of the day: 23,000 killed, wounded and MIA. A political bombshell in the wake of devastating loss will may go over with some people.

The EP didn't free a single slave, rather it was a political statement. If the Army of the Potomac had lost 10 months later at Gettysburg, the EP might very well have lost all it's punch.

[malaise]

29. He received a bullet

no need for impeachment.