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.
If your argument is that he had the right to confiscate anything used in the war effort, why didn't he confiscate their horses, or their cattle, or their homes, or whatever else was used? If the purpose is to confiscate in defiance of due process, why is this one so narrow?
Sounds to me like it wasn't about military purposes at all, it was simply what he preferred to do, and is therefore not a legitimate use of that power.
Making it discretionary makes it dictatorial.
Right.
It's absolutely critical to DiogenesLamp's fantasy narrative to pretend the same constitutional protections apply to secessionists in rebellion against the United States as to normal citizens.
And it does seem to me that SCOTUS has ruled in recent years something along those lines regarding War on Terror enemy combatants -- US citizens, or even illegal aliens in this country, don't lose their Constitutional rights just because they join & fight for an enemy's army(?!).
But I've read nothing which seriously backdated such rulings to the Civil War or in any way criticized Lincoln's actions based on standards in effect at that time.
My question: who during the Civil War wrote to claim Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to, for examples, confiscate "contraband" or declare Confederate slaves freed?