And the answer has nothing to do with whether you approve or not? I don't see it as relevant at all. I don't consider the right conditional on anyone's reasons for leaving, it is sufficient that they wish to leave.
It was a fact of US constitutional law that the President had authority to free "contraband" slaves in the protection of the US Army, but not slaves in states which had not declared their secession.
That old constitutional thing didn't stop him when he didn't want it to stop him. He even admits he broke a few rules. " Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation."
No, he was just fine with breaking it if he felt it was necessary. What it wasn't was politically viable. Had he forced Union states to give up their slaves, he would have had a mutiny. No, he could only make that happen after it became clear that the Army would be freed up to deal with other reluctant states if they balked.
So why is it that you people think this is such a clever issue to raise? Surely the real facts are simple enough for anyone to grasp?
Apparently not, because here we are with people constantly bringing up Slavery while ignoring the fact that the Union did not start a war with the South to abolish slavery, they started a war with the South to abolish independence, and the reasons why they abolished slavery were manyfold, and not so much out of concern for what was best for the slaves.
Again, had the Union been all about the slaves, they could have attacked the five Union Slave states. The supply lines would have been shorter.
Oh, but FRiend, there was vastly less arm-twisting or duress than you imagine here for one simple reason: those state legislatures now included, for the first time elected black representatives.
I am aware that it did, because they refused to allow white people to vote. Leaving only black voters and electing a black legislature was a revenge tactic designed to humiliate and and punctuate forcible Union rule, but it eventually became such an embarrassment to the Union that they did away with the "whites not allowed to vote" restrictions rather quickly.
What is odd is that it is difficult to find any reference to this bit of history, as if this whole incident was scrubbed from the History books. Very few history books mention it anymore. Don't find much on the internet regarding it either.
But getting back to the point, by bringing this up, I take it that you are asserting that the 13th amendment was ratified in the Southern states by black legislatures?
Is this what you are asserting?
But that is not what our Founders said, not in their Declaration of Independence, not in their Constitution, not ever.
In their minds there had to be necessity, solid reasons and lawful process before declaring independence.
If you wish to remove all those conditions, that's your desire, fine, but it's nothing anybody else needs to take seriously, FRiend.
DiogenesLamp: "That old constitutional thing didn't stop him when he didn't want it to stop him. He even admits he broke a few rules."
Referring to denial of habeas corpus, which Congress eventually authorized, as did the Confederate Congress for Jefferson Davis.
DiogenesLamp: "Had he forced Union states to give up their slaves, he would have had a mutiny."
If I remember most Southern Union states abolished slavery on their own, before the 13th Amendment was ratified.
And of course, all Southern states eventually ratified the 13th Amendment.
DiogenesLamp: "...the Union did not start a war with the South to abolish slavery, they started a war with the South to abolish independence..."
The Union never started Civil War, period.
The Confederacy provoked, started and declared war, sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri, months before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
DiogenesLamp: "I am aware that it did, because they refused to allow white people to vote."
All white men could vote who had not served the Confederacy.
And in many counties throughout the Confederate South, that was the majority of whites who did vote.
Remember, we are still talking 1865 here, not later years of reconstruction.
DiogenesLamp: "What is odd is that it is difficult to find any reference to this bit of history, ...
But getting back to the point, by bringing this up, I take it that you are asserting that the 13th amendment was ratified in the Southern states by black legislatures?"
Sorry, my mistake... President Andrew Johnson from eastern Tennessee, helped establish and negotiated with state legislatures in 1865.
These were composed of such Unionists as could be found in each state.
Kentucky finally ratified in 1976, and Mississippi was the last state to ratify the 13th Amendment, its ratification officially certified on February 7, 2013.
So obviously, there were many in former Confederate states who didn't go along with abolitionism.
On the whole period of reconstruction, that is almost never debated on these threads, with the result that I am quite vague on those events, prone to error... ;-(