Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation?What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisWexcellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notablethe counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
Claim: E.P. Was an Executive Order
Evaluation: This is true in a technical but non-notable sense, and false in the only context that would make this image/quote notable.
Yes, it was a type of presidential action that is closely linked to and frequently bundled with Executive Orders (see excellent answer from @ChrisW for details).
However, nobody ever contested that President couldn't issue Executive Actions, nor that Emancipation proclamation wasn't one. The reason this claim is at all notable is not merely the classification of the action, but the constitutional context it was taken under.
Please note that according to the site policy the counter-claim should be notable, not just the claim.
As such:
No, it was NOT an executive action that was similar to the kind that the quoted person (Nancy Pelosi) referred to:
The Emancipation proclamation was very explicitly done under the President's War Powers, and directly and purposefully limited to the Confederate states that were a belligerant combatant at the moment.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
This is drastically different in Constitutional scope from any normal Executive Orders, most specifically, the one Pelosi was referring to - Barak Obama's 2014 orders - which were NOT applicable to actions aganist an armed rebellion in his capacity as CiC.
Claim: E.P. declared that 3 million slaves were free
Evaluation: true based on un-referenced Wikipedia statement:
... but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions.
Claim: E.P. was "bypassing Congress"
Evaluation: 100% false, both in technical legal sense and in the spirit of things.
Please note that again, this is the critical part of the claim. Nobody objects to the fact that Emancipation proclamation was an Executive Order (and therefore the first part of the claim is by itself offtopic for Skeptics.SE).
The controvercy and the notability of both the claim and the subject matter stems specifically from 2014 orders being done "bypassing Congress".
As such, let's look at technical legal sense and the spirit of things of E.P.
In a technical legal sense, it was not "bypassing Congress", because - as a wartime action limited to enemy combatants - it was 100% constitutionally in President's purvue and NOT in any way in Congress's purvue.
This is indicated both in the wording of the Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority etc.
... as well as by later research:
The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces (src: "The Emancipation Proclamation: Freedom's first steps". National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-06-27)
Moreover, in a sense of the spirit, it was also NOT bypassing Congress, since Congress at the time was most likely in support of such an action
I don't have direct data for support of Emancipation in all Confederate Southern states as of 1862, but the one piece of legislature we do know about supports this assertion (h/t @NateEldredge):
The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which freed slaves in the District and compensated their former owners. According to this document (PDF) (page 8), in April of 1862 it passed the House 92-38 and the Senate 29-14, and Lincoln signed it into law
An important fact to not is that - at the time of Emancipation proclamation - the Congress did NOT seat the delegates from Confederate states:
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States (E.P., Paragraph II; and further reference can be found on Wikipedia under Civil War article detailing Congressmen from Southern states withdrawing from Congress)
In addition, Wikipedia article on 13th Amendment notes that a lot of opposition that Lincoln had to overcome in the House for passing it in 1865 (it sailed through the Senate 38 to 6) was - first of all - SMALL (majority of the House supported it even in the first vote, 93 in favor and 65 against); and second of all, rooted in the politics of the thing (State's rights) and NOT opposition to emancipation per se:
With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights (src: Benedict, "Constitutional Politics, Constitutional Law, and the Thirteenth Amendment" (2012), p. 179.)
I believe this should be enough to prove the point, but to get more historical data I also posted on History.SE: " What was the congressional level of support for Emancipation Proclamation? "
