Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Is the Health Care Reform Act a Civil Rights Act?

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on March 23rd, 2010

59971869Should we consider the health care reform act, which President Obama signed into law today to be a civil rights act? There is good reason to do so. Though the Act is far from perfect, it does represent a commitment by Congress to expand access to a fundamental human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including . . . medical care.” Martin Luther King called access to medical care a civil right. Though our Constitution does not include a right to health care (or any other substantive economic rights), it does give Congress the authority to create such rights. And, in a speech after the passage of the Act, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invoked the Declaration of Independence’s statement that all people are guaranteed a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Before the vote, Pelosi and other congressional leaders marched through protesters hurling racial epithets, an act that self-consciously harkened back to civil rights demonstrations of the past. The Act falls within the tradition of Congress enforcing the rights of social citizenship – economic rights that are essential preconditions to one’s ability to exercise other civil and political rights.

Strangely, opponents of the Act also think the Health Care Reform Act is a civil rights act, and argue that this is a reason to oppose it. In February, Rush Limbaugh called the Act a “civil rights act,” a “reparations” bill which people should oppose. Last week, Newt Gingrich compared the Act to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguing that Obama’s support of the Health Care Reform Act would wreck the Demcratic party like Lyndon Johnson’s support of the 1964 Act did.

How ironic! I have always thought of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as one of the great moments in American history. I also thought that as a society we had achieved a consensus that civil rights were a good thing. What could Gingrich possibly mean by his critique? Johnson was re-elected by a landslide in the fall of 1964, and he relied on that mandate to push through the Medicare Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act the next year. When Gingrich says the 1964 Act wrecked the Democratic party, could he be referring to the fact that after passage of the Civil Rights Act, many of the pro-segregationist southern Democrats became Republican, eventually turning the South from a solid Democratic block to the solid Republican block we have today?

If so, why would Gingrich want to remind us of the southern Republican party’s roots in segregationism and racism? It’s hard not to see a connection between Limbaugh and Gingrich’s remarks and the racial slurs hurled by protestors against the African American and Latino members of Congress on Sunday. Like Congress’ tradition of expanding human rights in acts like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act and the Medicare Act, there is an equally strong tradition of using race baiting as a tactic in American politics. One of the vestiges of segregation in our society is the racial disparity that still exists in our health care system. If this act helps to remedy this disparity, then it truly is a civil rights act.

The Cause of His Life

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on August 27th, 2009

Ted Kennedy is gone.  Now is the time for Congress to enact meaningful health care reform, including a public option, as a tribute totmpphpN2Ylkc[1] the “Lion of the Senate.”  Last year, Senator Kennedy referred to health care reform as “the cause of my life.”  This was no exaggeration.  Kennedy ran on the issue of affordable health care in 1962, in his first run for the Senate.  Kennedy was instrumental in the passage of Medicare and Medicaid programs, both controversial programs that faced considerable Republican opposition at the time which have now become highly popular.  In 1980, in his famous “the dream will never die” speech at the Democratic National Convention, Kennedy announced that he would “continue to stand for national health insurance” because “the state of a family’s health should never depend on a family’s wealth.”  There would be no better tribute to a man who gave over 45 years of his life to championing the cause of the poor, the middle class and the disenfranchised, than for Congress to enact health care reform in Ted Kennedy’s name.

There is precedent for enacting major human rights legislation to honor a fallen senatorial comrade.  In 1875, Kennedy’s Bay State predecessor, the great anti-slavery advocate Senator Charles Sumner, lay on his death bed as he pleaded with his Senate colleagues to “enact my civil rights bill.”  Sumner’s colleagues in Congress responded by enacting the 1875 Civil Rights Act as a tribute to his lifelong battle against slavery and on behalf of civil rights.  The 1875 Act prohibited race discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation.  (Historical note: The Supreme Court struck the 1875 Act down, necessitating the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which also passed with Ted Kennedy’s support)).

Like Sumner, Ted Kennedy worried about his life’s cause while on his death bed. From home, he continued to advocate for health care reform with his staff and colleagues. The week before he died, Kennedy repeated his request to the Massachusetts legislature to authorize the governor to appoint his successor instead of waiting until a special election filled his spot. Ted Kennedy knew that every vote would count in the Senate battle for health care reform.

So, members of Congress, it is up to you to realize Senator Ted Kennedy’s lifelong dream.  He deserves it, and so do we.

Another Lesson on Race in America

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on July 30th, 2009

Two weeks ago, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. got a lesson on race in America, and as a result, so have the rest of us.  A prominent Harvard scholar on race in Amer180px-Henry_Louis_Gates_Jrica, Professor Gates told NY Times Columnist Charles Blow that he has generally lived in “a cocoon of racial tolerance, enlightenment and reason.”  However, on the day that he returned from a trip to China and had trouble opening his front door, he became what Blow called “a member of the Club” – the 66% of Black men in America who told the New York Times that they felt they had been stopped by the police because of their race.  We don’t know whether Officer Crowley treated the professor differently because he was Black.  Officer Crowley might not even know.  Crowley teaches other officers how to avoid racial profiling, but can he avoid his own unsconcious feelings about race?  What we do know is that Professor Gates’ belief that he was treated differently because he was Black was entirely rational, given the history of race in America and in the Boston area.  Professor Gates writes about this history in his scholarship, and he teaches about it in his classes.  On that summer day, the academic became real for Professor Gates.

I vividly remember the day that the academic became real for me.  In law school in another New England city, I learned a lot about race in America from my classes and my African American classmates.  The spring of my second year, a white female and Black male friend and I looked to rent an apartment together.  My white female friend had made the appointment to see the apartment, but when we showed up with our Black friend, we were told the apartment was no longer available.  We went to lunch together and stared at each other blankly, asking, “Did that really happen?  Are we victims of discrimination?” The same thing happened at another apartment building that afternoon.  We later confirmed with friends that lived at both buildings that apartments were still available in both buildings.  We’ll never know for sure whether we were treated differently because my roommate was Black.  What we did know was that we had  been taught another lesson on race in America.

My experience, like that of Professor Gates and Officer Crowley, is typical of how people’s experiences are “colored” by racial differences.  Often, we don’t know whether our actions, or those of other people, are motivated by racial prejudice.  The lesson we can learn from Professor Gates is that race always matters – it is unrealistic to assume that it doesn’t.  What President Obama is trying to do today with his “beer summit” is what we all need to do – recognize that race influences all of us, talk about our differences, and try to understand each other.  When we can do that, then we will have indeed learned a positive lesson about race in America.

Justice Scalia’s Textualism: Brilliant or Perverse?

Written by Robert Justin Lipkin on June 15th, 2009

Justice Scalia insists that the Constitution be understood according to the most reasonable interpretation of the language used at the time to formulate and ratify the document. Yet, he writes:

The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means.  Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes by the Congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.  It doesn’t say that anywhere.  We made it up.  Now, we made it up very sensibly because what we said was, ‘Look, a Constitution is a law, it’s a sort of super-law . . . and what the law means is the job of the courts.

Anyone have even a modest familiarity with law and logic should be incredulous at this statement. First, if the Constitution nowhere says that the Court is the final authority on constitutional meaning then for a Scalian textualist that should end the matter. Second, Scalia believes that the Court, at least in this case, can just make up constitutional meaning, absent any constitutional text at all, when there is in his view a good reason for doing so. Then how, with intellectually honesty, can he reject the notion of an implied right to privacy, including abortion and the right to decriminalized same-sex intimacy, when there is some textual support for these rights in the “liberty” provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Finally, whether it is exclusively the courts job to say what the law means is arguably something that not even Chief Justice Marshall made up. To insist that that’s the reason for permitting the Court to made up judicial supremacy in circular reasoning in the extreme.

Sotomayor and Race

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on June 4th, 2009

Given the years of virulent racism that minorities in our country have faced throughout our history, it is a bit shocking to see right wingers like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh accuse Suprefinal-4.jpgme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic ever nominated to that Court, of being a “racist,” based solely on one remark that she made in a speech seven years ago.   On this subject, I highly recommend Charles Blow’s recent New York Times editorial, “Rogues, Robes and Racists.”   As Blow notes, there is no evidence in Sotomayor’s life, legal career or judicial record of her ever acting like a racist.  Blow contrasts Sotomayor’s record with that of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was reported by Newsday magazine to have made racist and sexist jokes while working in the White House for the President Reagan.  What is most significant is that Roberts didn’t just talk the talk, he has spent his entire career walking the walk, working to roll back the civil rights gains of women and minorities from the 1960s and 1970s.  As Bobby notes below, quoting Jeffrey Toobin, Roberts has continued this pattern as Chief Justice, ruling against criminal defendants, non-white civil rights plaintiffs (he ruled in favor of the white plaintiff challenging the use of race to avoid the re-segregation of Seattle public schools) and plaintiffs suing corporations.  Does that mean Roberts is a racist?  Not necessarily, but as Blow observes, there is a heck of a lot more evidence of his racism than there is of Sotomayor’s.

Blow’s editorial is so powerful and eloquent that I really don’t have much to add.  What I can add, however, is a bit of context to the speech that has gotten Sotomayor into so much hot water.  In a speech during a symposium on Latino judges, hosted by La Raza Law Journal, Judge Sotomayor said that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  Why would Sotomayor say such a thing?  It is clear from reading her speech that Sotomayor was asked to comment on how her experience as a Latina woman colors her perception of issues on the bench.  This subject is understandable given the Critical Race Theory roots of the La Raza publication that hosted Sotomayor’s speech.  At the risk of over-simplification, one theme of critical race theory is questioning the assumption that law is neutral and un-biased, and examining the ways in which our laws reinforce the existing power structures in our society, including the privileging of the concerns of white people, men, and the rich.

I have no idea what Sotomayor thinks about critical race theory, but it is clear from her speech that she is responding to this CRT critique of the law.  In her speech, Sotomayor describes her personal experiences as a “NewYorkrican” and acknowledges that these experiences have an effect on how she sees the world.  But in a much less quoted remark at the end of the speech, Sotomayor goes on to observe, “I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires.”  That’s the most we can hope for from any judge, and Sotomayor’s judicial record reflects the fact that she has been pretty successful at it.

In his majority opinion striking down two local school districts’ attempts to use race as one factor in school assignments in order to reduce racial stratification in the public schools, Justice Roberts famously noted, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  I agree with Roberts’ sentiment, but I also agree with the Critical Race Theorist view that race discrimination is more complicated than Roberts’ remarks suggests – that we are all affected by unconscious bias.  Given the choice between Roberts’ overly simplistic remark and Sotomayor’s sophisticated evaluation, and the choice between their records on racial issues, I prefer Sotomayor.

Why Sotomayor Is a Good Choice

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on May 28th, 2009

There are three reasons why I think Sonia Sotomayor is a good choice to be the next Justice on the United States Supreme Court.  First, her nomination is historic.  If confirmed, Justice Sotomayor will be the first Latina, the first woman of color, and only the third woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court (not to mention the first Supreme Court Justice to grow up in a public housing project!).  Second, Sotomayor is an incredibly accomplished, brilliant woman who is highly qualified for the job.  Third, Judge Sotomayor has the right temperament and philosophy for the Supreme Court today.

It is difficult to overstate the historic significance of President Obama’s choice of a Latina woman as his first nomination to the Susotomayor.jpgpreme Court.   To illustrate my point, consider this:   When I was a student at Yale Law School in the late 1980s, the law students held a one day strike for diversity, calling for diversity in the faculty, student body and law school curriculum.  To protest the fact that at that time Yale had never had a woman of color on the faculty, a classmate of mine created paper effigies of all the faculty members and hung them from the ceiling of the law school.  Hanging from the ceiling was a long row of white men, several white women, and several men of color.  No women of color.  Now imagine if my classmate had done the same with the United States Supreme Court throughout our history.  Out of 115 paper effigies (based on my unofficial count), 111 of them would be white men, two would Black men, and two white women.  Again, no women of color.

The fact that Justice Sotomayor would be the first Latina and the first woman of color ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court, and a person who comes from a low income background, matters because the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect all of our lives, including the 52% of us who are women and the 26% of us who are non-white.  It matters because life experience, including our gender, race and economic backgrounds, affects how all of us view the world, and how judges view the law.  This does not mean that Justice Sotomayor would always rule in favor of women, people of color (regardless of their gender), and poor people, who appear before the Court.  Her record on the lower federal courts makes this abundantly clear.  What it does mean is that Justice Sotomayor would bring a life experience to the Court that would enrich the Court’s consideration of legal issues and make the Court more connected to the impact of its decisions on all of us.

Second, Justice Sotomayor’s qualifications are outstanding.  She graduated at the top of her class from Princeton, one of the nation’s top universities and an incredibly competetive institution.  She excelled as well at Yale Law School, where she served on the Law Review.  Sotomayor has extensive experience as a prosecutor and as a private attorney, and 17 years as a federal judge.  I am incredulous that anyone could argue that Sotomayor lacks the credentials to be a Supreme Court justice.  These critiques simply have no foundation.  Sotomayor’s record speaks for itself.

Finally, I believe that Sotomayor has the right temperament for the Court at this time.  This is where I differ from those liberals who have argued that they would prefer someone with a stronger ideological focus.   By all accounts, Sotomayor is a liberal to moderate person who enjoys engaging legal arguments and listens to all sides before making decisions.  However, she is no shrinking violet and is not likely to be intimidated by the more conservative, more senior members of the Court.  (After all, the woman grew up in a Bronx housing project!!!)

Sotomayor’s record is also so far from the “liberal activist” label that conservative critics are trying to link to her that the label simply won’t stick.  It’s about time that we recognized that (as I have argued in previous columns) the only activism that has occurred in  the United States Supreme Court in the past twenty or so years has been conservative retrenchment against progressive political policies.  If confirmed, Sotomayor will bring strong experience, diversity, and a balanced approach to the law that belies that conservative activism.   As a person with progressive politics who is sick and tired of the activism of the conservative Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, I say, bring Sotomayor on!

“Progressive Originalism”

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on March 19th, 2009

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article this week about the surge of interest in originalism among constitutional scholars and advocates.  These scholars and advocates focus not on the original constitutiojohn-bingham.jpgn, but on the Reconstruction Era, also known as the Second Founding because the Reconstruction Amendments changed our constitution so fundamentally.  I am happy to see the Framers of the Reconstruction constitution getting attention in the mainstream media, especially John Bingham, the original author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment and one of the leading constitutional theorists in the Reconstruction Congress.  The article also provides an opportunity to consider the question of originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation, and whether “preogressive originalism” is an oxymoron.  “Originalism” as a method of constitutional interpretation has long been associated with conservative ideology.  Indeed, originalism is a fundamentally conservative method of constitutional interpretation in the classic sense of conservatism.  There are varying schools of originalism, but basically originalists ask judges who are interpreting the constitution to look back at the past and to be bound (to varying extents depending on the scholar or judge) by the meaning of the constitution at the time that it was drafted.

Given the fundamentally conservative nature of originalism, how could any originalist consider him or herself to be “progressive?”  For scholars such as myself who research and write about the Reconstruction Era, the answer is simple.  The members of the Reconstruction Congress were progressive, very progressive, even radical.  They intended the Reconstruction Amendments to alter our system of federalism by transfering the primary responsibility over individual rights from the states to the federal government.  They also had a very broad vision of what these individual rights would be, ranging from the rights to life, liberty and property to all of the fundamental rights.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, they were the first to give Congress the power to define and protect our individual rights by including congressional enforcement clauses in the Reconstruction Amendments.

Focusing on Reconstruction enables scholars to be originalists and believe that the constitution is a progressive document at the same time.  But this attitude does not answer the fundamental dilemma of constitutional interpretation – whether those interpreting the constitution must always look back to what constitutional provisions meant at the time that they were written, or whether they can consider what those provisions mean in contemporary times.  Conservative originalists like originalism because it cabins the discretion of unaccountable judges when they are interpreting the constitution.  They argue that considering the contemporary meaning of constitutional provisions is an invitation to judges to allow their political and personal views to color their interpretation of the Constitution.

The dilemma of “progressive originalism” is less problematic when we understand that the members of the Reconstruction Congress did not believe that judges were the sole, or even the primary interpreters of the constitution.  Like conservative originalists, members of the Reconstruction Congress were very skeptical of the judicial branch, which they recognized as the author of Dred Scott and an apologist for the Slave Power.  They also believed that members of Congress had a large amount of autonomy to interpret the constitution themselves, and they intended the congressional enforcement clauses to reflect this vision of constitutional interpretation.  When members of Congress interpret the constitution, they need not look back to the meaning of those provisions at the time that they were adopted.  Instead, they may take their political views and contemporary circumstances into account.  That is their job, and that is the task assigned to them by the Reconstruction Congress.  The Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments assumed that those interpreting the broad provisions establishing individual rights in those amendments would take contemporary circumstances into account.  They just didn’t expect the Court to monopolize that interpretation the way that it has in cases such as City of Boerne v. Flores.  Thus, an originalist understanding of the Reconstruction Amendments is progressive, both politically and institutionally.

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court, comprised primarily of “originalists,” has failed to take an originalist approach to the Fourteenth Amendment.  In Boerne, the Court restricted the Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that would have made Reconstruction Framers such as Bingham, James Ashley and Lyman Trumbull roll over in their graves.  Let’s hope the new originalist approach to Reconstruction makes its way to the US Supreme Court, so that the progressive vision of the Reconstruction Framers can be restored – not just in the courts, but also in Congress.

No Town Like Motown

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on March 12th, 2009

In many ways, the city of Detroit, Michigan, embodies the American dream – and its failings.  In the Twentieth Century, Detroit was a center of industry – and not just any industry.   The American romance with the automobile is centrdetroit-skyline.jpgal to the American dream, and for much of the Twentieth Century, most of our cars were made in or around Detroit.  Automobile enthusiasts looked forward to the Detroit auto show every year, and one need only scan the titles of popular songs to understand how much we loved cars made in Detroit – Mustangs, Cadillacs, Mercuries, the list goes on and on.  Of course, the cars made in Detroit were not just important in popular culture – they also provided thousands of people with well-paying jobs.  As a result, immigrants flocked to Detroit from other countries and  African Americans migrated from the south of this country, fleeing Jim Crow and seeking a new prosperous life.  Detroit became the center of the union movement, and automobile workers prospered.  Until the mid-1960s, Detroit really was a city in which the American dream came to life for thousands of people.

The decline of Detroit is an all-too-familiar story.  The race riots in the 1960s, the white migration to the suburbs, the arrival of Japanese cars, and the decline of the American automobile industry.  GM was once the number one employer in this country, but GM, and its well-paying union jobs, has now been replaced in that role by Walmart and its low-paying no-benefits positions.  To look at how the American dream has failed so many workers in this country, one need only look at Detroit.  In these dark days of economic recession, no place is darker than Detroit.  GM and Chrysler are on the brink of economic disaster, and the third of the Big Three, Ford, is struggling as well.  The rate of unemployment in Detroit is over 10%, and it is one of the cities worst hit by the housing crisis.  I have heard reports of houses selling for as little as $100 in Detroit.

Ironically, the low cost of housing in Detroit is also cause for a strange sort of optimism.  Artists have started buying houses in Detroit, moving from more prosperous cities like Chicago to find a place they can afford to live.  The sheer economic devastation in that city thus leaves open the possibility of a new urban colony with renovated housing, green energy, community gardens, and artistic renewal.  Sound crazy?  Maybe, but there is that spirit about Detroit, that spirit of hope and optimism that reflects the remnants of the American dream.  The 1960s were a decade of turmoil and racial strife in Detroit, arguably the beginning of the downward spiral that is culminating today.  But they were also the decade of Motown music.  Could artists alone save Detroit?  Of course not, but we also can’t expect the automobile industry alone to do the job.  Cities like Detroit need imagination and vision, small businesses and “knowledge jobs.”  For that reason, this new migration of artists to Detroit may be what’s needed to start the city moving in a new direction.

Preserving the Historical Record of the Bush-Cheney Administration

Written by Robert Justin Lipkin on February 13th, 2009

For a nation to maintain its honor it must be true to its morality, its politics, and its history. Its morality requires taking responsibility for wrongdoing. Politics requires holding those culpable of wrongdoing accountable for their specific crimes. History requires preserving the record of the nation’s wrongdoing in order for future generationtmpphpreyq501.jpgs to avoid repeating them. Although the dark days of the Bush-Cheney regime are beyond us, its shadow persists. Indeed, it may not be possible to emerge from this shadow without responding as a nation to whatever crimes were committed on the Bush-Cheney watch. The Obama administration seems inclined to be “forward-looking,” which means unless irrefutable proof of illegality is established to focus on how the United States can return to its principles and values, for instance, by eliminating torture. Others want to subject the Bush-Cheney years to critical investigations and prosecute where warranted. The first approach virtually turns a blind eye to the atrocities of the past eight years. The second approach conceivably will consume the Obama administration with congressional and judicial inquiries deflecting the administration from attending to the other egregious problems–such as the Iraq War and an economy in free fall–bequeathed to the nation from arguably the most irresponsible and incompetent administration in the nation’s history.  Neither approach is very attractive.  Senator Leahy, (D-Vermont) has suggested a third possibility. To preserve the historical record without requiring the current administration to engage in complex prosecutions, Leahy has suggested the formation of a “truth commission,” which would offer immunity to anyone who truthfully testifies to the facts of the debacle in Iraq. Anyone accepting immunity that lies would be subject to prosecution for perjury. Whatever the drawbacks of this proposal it satisfies the most important overriding value, namely, it preserves the historical record on possible war crimes committed by the Bush-Cheney administration.  Without such a record, America’s honor is severely compromised.

Happy Birthday, Abe!

Written by Rebecca Zietlow on February 12th, 2009

Today is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, an event worthy of at least a moment’s reflection.  Unfortunately, many of the media reports today focus on Lincoln’s death, not his many and significant life accomplishments.  I am most interested in Lincoln’s theory of the Constitution, and the role that played in the abolition of slavery and the Civil War victory.  Lincoln said that the Constitution was a frame of silver around an apple of gold, with the apple of gold symbolizing the principle of liberty embodied in the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln’s chief contribution to our history was the abolition of slavery through his Emancipation Proclamation and advocacy for the Thirteenth Amendment, which constitutionalized abolition and the “apple of gold ” – the principles of liberty.

At times, the apple of gold and the frame of silver were in tension with each other.  At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln’s Republican Party was divided over whether preserving the union (the lincoln1901.jpgframe of silver) was more important than the principle of liberty and the abolition of slavery.  Indeed, at that time Lincoln supported an amendment to the constitution that would have guaranteed the right of states to retain the institution of slavery.  He saw that amendment as a compromise that was necessary to preserve the Union.  Though that Amendment was approved by Congress against the vociferous opposition of Radicals in Lincoln’s party, it was not enough to prevent the south from withdrawing from the Union and attacking Fort Sumpter while that Thirteenth Amendment was under consideration in state legislatures.  As the war progressed, Lincoln became convinced that abolishing slavery was necessary to preserve the Union.  The two guiding principles of Lincoln’s constitutional vision coalesced and he became the Great Emancipator.