If, according to your argument, no state has ever been out of the Union, then the Constitution must have still applied to the states that seceded. Was the power to free slaves in seceded states delegated to the Executive somewhere in the Constitution or was Lincoln simply running roughshod over the Constitution again with the Emancipation Proclamation?
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?
....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union."
A. Lincoln, 8/23/63
President Lincoln invoked the war power of the president in issuing the EP. This is backed up by the Supreme Court:
"5. A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party; and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war.
6. A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
7. The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States, has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war; and they have, therefore, the right jure bello to institute a blockade of any ports in possession of the rebellious States.
8. The proclamation of blockade by the President is of itself conclusive evidence that a state of war existed, which demanded and authorized [***6] recourse to such a measure.
9. All persons residing within the territory occupied by the hostile party in this contest, are liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
67 U.S. 635; 17 L. Ed. 459; 1862 U.S. LEXIS 282; 2 Black 635
DECEMBER, 1862, Term
The secessionists didn't read the Constitution very carefully.
Walt
I'm sorry, Walt, but I don't see from the Supreme Court items you listed a justification for Lincoln's exceeding the Constitutionally delegated powers of the Executive. Are you arguing that in times of war a president can do anything he wants?
The Constitution says the president is commander of the army, navy, and militia. It does not delegate to him the power to free slaves. In fact, I though Lincoln argued earlier that he did not have the authority to free slaves.