Well that is just factually incorrect. The Northern side began the war with their leader proclaiming that he had no authority to change the Constitutionally protected practice of slavery. Presumably if he was "preserving the Union", he was requiring obedience to Constitutional law, which is the very essence of the Union.
He was therefore requiring obedience to the pro-slavery clause in the Constitution as much as the rest of the document.
Indeed, his own Emancipation Proclamation excepted every area under Union control, just as constitutional law would have required for every Constitutional jurisdiction.
Well it is absolutely factually correct. Far more correct than your claim is.
The Northern side began the war with their leader proclaiming that he had no authority to change the Constitutionally protected practice of slavery. Presumably if he was "preserving the Union", he was requiring obedience to Constitutional law, which is the very essence of the Union.
And the Southern side linked their cause inextricably to the preservation and advancement of slavery. They launched their war to further that aim.
He was therefore requiring obedience to the pro-slavery clause in the Constitution as much as the rest of the document.
True. And he never violated that oath to defend even that part of the Constitution.
Indeed, his own Emancipation Proclamation excepted every area under Union control, just as constitutional law would have required for every Constitutional jurisdiction.
Complete nonsense. Freeing the slaves in areas in rebellion was well within Lincoln's powers as granted by the Confiscation Acts. The constitutionality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1862 Prize Cases decision.