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.
Without the land, it wouldn't grow enough to feed anyone.
So? interfering with slavery interfered with the Confederate ability to make war. This is a legitimate action by the C in C.
Not when it allows the retention of other property that allows the Confederates the ability to make war. It is clearly subverting the winning of the war to a political agenda.
You can make the claim that the President may do anything which helps to win the war, but this argument requires him to do anything to win the war. If he's not doing that, then what he is doing he isn't doing for the purpose of winning the war, he's doing it for some other reason, and claiming that as an excuse to cover up his actually illegal motives.
Victory was the objective. Victory was what Lincoln was achieved.
But how much more blood and treasure was expended because he did not apply the same measure to all property used to support the Confederacy?
You cannot claim a moral imperative in which you employs half measures.
What in fact happened is he masqueraded a political decision as a military decision, because doing it for political reasons was completely illegal and an usurpation of power.