You get the wrong impression because you don't actually read what other people write to you. You just see they left you a message, and you're off galloping at the keyboard to respond.
The point was that freeing slaves was illegal. While you can make a specious argument for doing so during the war, you cannot make a legal argument for doing it after the war. Of course restricting it to slaves also undermines it's claim of validity as a war tactic.
At the Civil War's end former Confederates were not allowed to vote or hold political office.
Which is an illegal act pulled completely out of Lincoln's @$$. States determine who is allowed to vote, not the Federal Government, at least that's the way it was prior to the Civil War.
Disenfranchising the legal and valid citizens of a state is a dictatorial move, not a constitutional one. It is a clear usurpation of the powers reserved to the state under Article I, Section 2.
But didn't you just admit you have no god-like authority to declare what is, or is not, illegal or constitutional?
And yet here you are doing it again.
How does that even work?
The fact is there were no successful legal challenges to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which means that by war's end virtually all the Confederacy's 3.5 million slaves had been freed.
Do you now tell us they should have been immediately put back into slavery??
On what basis is that even conceivable?
And by war's end most Union slaves had also been freed by their own state governments such that when the 13th amendment was ratified in December 1865 only a smattering of slaves remained anywhere to be freed.
So what, precisely, are you trying to tell us should have happened instead?
DiogenesLamp: "Which is an illegal act pulled completely out of Lincoln's @$$.
States determine who is allowed to vote, not the Federal Government, at least that's the way it was prior to the Civil War. "
And yet again, your authority for declaring it "illegal" is what, exactly?
Seems pretty obvious to me that people who had officially declared themselves non-citizens would not automatically again become citizens just because they surrendered unconditionally in a war they'd fought for four long years.
DiogenesLamp: "Disenfranchising the legal and valid citizens of a state is a dictatorial move, not a constitutional one.
It is a clear usurpation of the powers reserved to the state under Article I, Section 2."
But nobody disenfranchised them, they disenfranchised themselves, in 1861.
It just took a few years after to 1865 to re-enfranchise all those ex-Confederates.
Makes perfect sense to me.