...insisted that the "constitution invests its commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war." "Is there — has there ever been — any question...whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy?" Lincoln added that some key generals "believe the emancipation policy, and the use of colored troops,...

...within the legal category of military actions allowable to weaken the enemy. "The most that can be said, is, that slaves are property. Is there — has there...whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy?" Of course, it was possible to quibble whether such a war-powers dictum as the Emancipation Proclamation...

...unconstitutional. I think differently. I think that the Constitution invests its Commander-in-Chief with the law of war in time of war. The most that can be...has there ever been, any question that by the law of water, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever...

...unconstitutional - I think differently. I think the Constitution invests its commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can...whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy?" This is the Lincoln who consistently took the shortest distance between two legal points. The proposition...

...differently. I think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. ... Is there — has there ever been — any question...whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? . . . Some of our commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes,...

...unconstitutional—I think differently. I think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can...said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there—has there ever been—any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends,...

...so, he followed ineluctable logic: if slaves were property, as Confederates claimed, there has never been "any question that by the law of war, property,...enemies and friends, may be taken when needed." And if slaves were not property, why were they slaves? And should they not be appealed to as people? "[N]egroes,...

...vociferously challenged. He dismissed such arguments, citing his powers as commander in chief. Besides, "slaves are property. Is there — has there ever...— any question that by the law of war, property . . . may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy?"...

...most that can be said, if so much, is that slaves are property. Is there—has there ever been—any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help...

...differently. I think that the Constitution invests its Commander-in-chief with the law of war in the time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that the slaves are property. Is there, has there ever been, any question that by the law of war, property,...