[DiogenesLamp]

But any suggestion that freed slaves should be returned to slavery after April 1865 flies in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation language:

Unless Lincoln is the dictator that many of us claim he was, his "language" is not law. Law is law, and you cannot create law by Presidential diktat.

Article IV, section 2 specifically *REQUIRES* slaves to be returned to their masters. Your argument is with constitutional law. I am merely reminding you of what it actually says on the matter.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Article IV, section 2 specifically *REQUIRES* slaves to be returned to their masters.
Your argument is with constitutional law.
I am merely reminding you of what it actually says on the matter."

But once freed -- according to whichever law -- they were **NOT** SLAVES and so could under no circumstances be "returned" to any alleged "master".

You should well know that and should be deeply ashamed of yourself for arguing otherwise, FRiend.

[DoodleDawg]

...Law is law, and you cannot create law by Presidential diktat.

You mean laws like the Confiscation Acts passed in 1861 and 1862?