In the first his action had no legal basis, in the second, he still had no legal basis, as the uncompensated theft of property is a violation of the Constitution, and also held to be illegal in numerous Supreme Court decisions.
In any event, the SLAVES still remaining in US territories/states/union controlled areas STILL remained slaves.
Also note, that if any states 'in rebellion' would return to the union fold before 1 Jan 1863, their slaves would remain SLAVES. Lincoln wasn't freeing anybody, he wanted the states back, so he could collect the MONIES!
Bingo!
Bump!
I'm so glad you think the Emancipation Proclamation is funny . It provides useful insight into your world view. It wasn't funny to your white supremist confederate heroes, who saw the EP with its call to arm the freed slaves and put them into military service, as a dagger aimed at the heart of their proto-fascist state.
He allegedly freed slaves in a) a foreign country or b) his own country.
Lincoln always sought to preserve the Union and uphold the US Constitution first. The Emancipation Proclamation recognized that slavery in states not in rebellion was Constitutional [a sad and unfortunate truth], while slavery in states at war with the United States was not protected the same way.
-btw I posted the EP to you without comment in direct response to your posting Union documents regarding confedrate prisoners. The truth is your white supremist southern heroes were unwilling to treat captured black soldiers as humans, something you seem unwilling to face up to. Hence your quasi-legalistic strawman about how states in rebellion should be provided the legal protection of the country they were trying to destroy.