Replies

And Lincoln did not believe secessionists had any lawful right to seize by force Federal properties such as forts, ships, arsenals & mints.

I suppose the King also didn't think the patriots had any right to seize forts and arsenals belonging to the crown either.

Sorry to break it to you, but calling out the troops to attack is the same thing as declaring war. If war wasn't what he was pursing, then why did he call for troops?

Union army controlled very little Confederate territory

Yes, and all regions controlled by the Union were exempted in the proclamation. Those slaves remained slaves.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I suppose the King also didn't think the patriots had any right to seize forts and arsenals belonging to the crown either."

But our Founders never seized any British forts & arsenals before the Brits had both formally declared war and launched military attacks on Americans.
So everything our Founders did was in response to British aggression.

But with Confederates, it was the reverse -- Confederates seized US property, Confederates launched military assaults, Confederates formally declared war, all before any military actions by the United States.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Sorry to break it to you, but calling out the troops to attack is the same thing as declaring war.
If war wasn't what he was pursing, then why did he call for troops?"

Then why did Jefferson Davis first call up 100,000 Confederate troops, on March 6, two days after Lincoln's inauguration?
Was that Davis' "declaration of war" on the United States?

I say "no", because calling up troops is not a declaration of war, and neither is declaring a naval blockade.
Yes, both are often associated with wars, but they are not in themselves "acts of war" and do not always lead to war.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Yes, and all regions controlled by the Union were exempted in the proclamation. Those slaves remained slaves."

Again you misunderstand, even though it's been explained to you clearly, more than once.

By law, the US president could not declare any slaves "free" in any state, territory or region deemed loyal to the United States.
But also by law, the US military could declare enemy "property" to be "contraband" and seize it for military use.
And as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Lincoln could declare such "contraband property" to be free human beings, and so he did.

So in 1862 that emancipation proclamation effected only perhaps 20,000 to 50,000 slaves, but by war's end, with Union army control of most of the Confederacy, it freed millions.

So tell us precisely: what part of that do you not yet "get"?