[Non-Sequitur]

And Lincoln's convictions were so strong that by his unconstitutional edict he freed slaves over which had no power to free (the slaves in the Confederacy) and yet left slaves in bondage within the Union where he did had dominion.

Several errors in that statement. First, there was nothing unconstitutional in Lincoln's actions. Second, he had all the power necessary to order those slaves being used to support the rebellion freed.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed not one slave but was an political attempt to "shine the turd " of Lincoln's war.

Quite the contrary, it led to freedom for hundreds of thousands of slaves as federal forces liberated territory from the forces of the rebellion.

Bill Clinton had nothing on ole"Slick" Abe Lincoln.

Southron Desperation Act #673: When in doubt compare Lincoln with Clinton. Or Carter.

[RedMonqey]

First, there was nothing unconstitutional in Lincoln's actions

Of course it was illegal as well as un unconstitutional. Since when do "proclamations" replace the rule of law or the authority of congress to make laws?

Under what statue did Lincoln used to seize lawfully held property? If one take's Lincoln 's argument that the states in rebellion were still in the Union, then how could he take away legally owned property from his fellow citizens of the United States? The Dred Scott decision still was the law of the land. Forget the rebel states, please explain how Lincoln and his cohorts in crime stole the legal property of the Unionist slave owners in Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, etc.

Did Lincoln and company give payment to the slave owners for the seized property? Of course not.

The successful thief never pays restitution to the rightful owners for the stolen goods.

...it led to freedom for hundreds of thousands of slaves as federal forces liberated territory from the forces of the rebellion...



Lincoln freed the slaves at the point of a bayonet and nothing more. The Emancipation Proclamation was a patchwork rag without any legality to cover up his failure to justify a bloody war to imprison Free States under his despotic Union rule. He needed to ennoble the war after the continuing terrible loses like the Battles at Antietam. Many in the North started grumbling to let go the states in rebellion. Most who would have challenged it constitutionality was already on the other side and anyone else in the North would have faced imprisonment as a traitor under Honest Abe's beneficent rule.

Southron Desperation Act #673: When in doubt compare Lincoln with Clinton. Or Carter.

More sophistry from Non-Sequitur.
Typically weak response from a Yankee whenever the truth or the facts isn't on their side.