[libertarianben]

No, the South was a constitutionally independent nation. He was not the President of it so he could not maker laws in a nation he did not rule.

[Heyworth]

No, the South was a constitutionally independent nation.

Saying it doesn' t make it so. The south had a "Right to Rebellion." Unfortunately for them they didn't have what it took to make it stick. The United States government never recognized them as anything more than rebels. Nor did anyone else in the world, except one minor German principality.

[sangrila]

How's that kool-aid?

[Non-Sequitur]

No, the South was a constitutionally independent nation. He was not the President of it so he could not maker laws in a nation he did not rule.

The south was a section of the U.S. engaged in a rebellion, and remained so in the eyes of the Lincoln administration and in the eyes of the world. As such the Emancipation Proclamation was a valid order, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

[Casloy]

No, the South was a constitutionally independent nation. He was not the President of it so he could not maker laws in a nation he did not rule.

That is some of the goofiest logic I have ever read. The entire war was about whether the south had the right to secede the Union. The south was not a consititutionally independent nation, they seceded in what they were convinced was a legal way. The Federal government disagreed. That's why we went to war. At that point, like it or not, might makes right.