The constitution requires the slave holding laws of states in the Union to be obeyed. It doesn't give you a "but, but, but, but, they are in rebellion!" card to play.
Lincoln behaved as if the States were out of the Union for the purpose of freeing slaves in areas he didn't control, and then he behaved as if the States were still in the Union to claim jurisdiction over them in every other way.
DiogenesLamp:
"The constitution requires the slave holding laws of states in the Union to be obeyed.
It doesn't give you a 'but, but, but, but, they are in rebellion!' card to play." Of course it does, in Article 1 section 8, which authorizes Congress to:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Nothing in the Constitution restricts the Federal government's war fighting powers.
Indeed, that
fact is a significant reason
why Congress since WWII has been so very reluctant to formally "declare war" -- such a declaration has always removed normal limitations on Federal powers.
Again, if your bizarre legal theories had merit, surely they'd have been tested in courts by now, right?