To: DoodleDawg
That's ignoring the claim. You are ignoring the claim. The claim was that Lincoln imposed freedom for slaves in the South but would not do so in the North where he actually had the power to do it.
My point of course is that Lincoln didn't have the legal power to do it in the North or the South.
266 posted on
10/13/2018 1:42:16 PM PDT by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: DiogenesLamp
The claim was that Lincoln imposed freedom for slaves in the South but would not do so in the North where he actually had the power to do it. Go back and read post 224.
My point of course is that Lincoln didn't have the legal power to do it in the North or the South
Your point is ridiculous and wrong. But where is the surprise in that?
To: DiogenesLamp
My point of course is that Lincoln didn't have the legal power to do it in the North or the South. Sounds like a lawsuit is in order. When are you going to announce?
279 posted on
10/13/2018 3:49:30 PM PDT by
rockrr
( Everything is different now...)
To: DiogenesLamp; DoodleDawg
DiogenesLamp:
"My point of course is that Lincoln didn't have the legal power to do it in the North or the South." Lincoln had constitutional/legal authority to suppress rebellions.
Emancipation was an act of war against Confederates.
States & regions loyal to the Union remained under Constitutional protections until ratification of the 13th amendment.
328 posted on
10/14/2018 9:07:22 AM PDT by
BroJoeK
((a little historical perspective...))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson