So did the land. In fact, the land had more to do with it than the slaves.
In addition to slaves, any property useful to the Confederate cause was usually seized, destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable by the Confederate cause.
Not to the same extent. This singling out of this particular "property" is clearly the whim of those in charge, and is not an actual objective standard.
The reality is "because I said so" and nothing else. There is no real law underpinning this, just power.
Without the slaves, the land will grow not enough food in quantities to feed the Confederate Army.
“Not to the same extent. This singling out of this particular “property” is clearly the whim of those in charge, and is not an actual objective standard”
So? interfering with slavery interfered with the Confederate ability to make war. This is a legitimate action by the C in C.
“The reality is “because I said so” and nothing else. There is no real law underpinning this, just power.”
Not power, victory The reality is it is a war. There is no consolation prize for second place. You are correct, no law underpins the President of the United States acting as the C in C in the prosecution of a war. Victory was the objective. Victory was what Lincoln was achieved.