That was actually pretty close to the reading that constitutional scholars of the time had given.
The most noted of these was former President John Quincy Adams in his later role as a senior member of the US House of Representatives.
The key is that seceding territories were held to be in "rebellion" and "insurrection" and therefore under control of the US military.
And there were then a number of precidents establishing that in territory under the control of the US Army, slavery could be abolished at the direction of the military's commanding officer.
So, the key to the constitutionality of Lincoln's actions was the South's legal status of "insurrection" and "rebellion."
And since southern representatives and Senators had quit the Congress, they were no longer there to oppose Republicans who voted the South to be in rebellion.
Well stated. BTW, not all southern congressmen went with the Confederacy. Aside from the border states, a Senator and a Representative from Tennessee, two Representatves from Virginia and one from Louisiana remained loyal to the U.S. government.
“And there were then a number of precidents establishing that in territory under the control of the US Army, slavery could be abolished at the direction of the military’s commanding officer.”
Neat trick. Abe should have just appointed a couple of Czars. No wonder Zero is so often compared to him.
Lincoln would have simply had them arrested, but those same Constitutional scholars probably would have found that to be okay as well.