[DiogenesLamp]

His slaves were subject to conscription by the Confederate Government and Confederate Army to support the war effort.

Sort of like the allies announcing they were going to bomb civilians in WWII? Because civilians support the war effort?

So whether a guy wanted to contribute or not, because we are going to follow Confederate law that declared him a contributor, the Union is going to ignore the part of the Constitution that requires due process?

Interfering with slavery in any manner is a legitimate exercise of war powers afforded the President.

Sounds like the way the Supreme court interpreted the commerce clause in Wickard v Fillburn.

For being a part of the society that voted to leave US Constitutional law, we are not only going to force it back on you, we are going to deprive you of it while we are forcing it back on you! :)

[Bull Snipe]

Yes. There is no second place in war. Lincoln did not confiscate the slaves of the Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware planters. They were not used against the United States. He confiscated the slaves in those states in rebellion and at war against the United States. The United States Government had absolutely no qualms in shooting a Confederate soldier with a rifle in his hand. Even though execution requires due process. Why should they have qualms about taking slaves from their owner. Those slaves were much more valuable to the continued existence of the Confederacy that that Confederate soldier.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So whether a guy wanted to contribute or not, because we are going to follow Confederate law that declared him a contributor, the Union is going to ignore the part of the Constitution that requires due process? "

"Due process" as defined by Congress is considerably different (abbreviated) during wartime regarding enemy combatants than with normal civilians in peacetime.