Lincoln reverses Gen. Fremont's, uSA, emancipation proclamation and then fires Gen. Fremont:

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative2.html

But Fremont also proved to be capable of rash action. Late in the summer of 1861 he issued a proclamation announcing the emancipation of slaves in Missouri. Lincoln, eager to avoid ruffling the feathers of border state slaveholders, ordered Fremont to withdraw the proclamation. When Fremont demurred, the commander-in-chief officially overruled his subordinate. In early November, the War Department removed Fremont from his command.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/september/lincoln-slave-order.htm

THE EMANCIPATION QUESTION IN MISSOURI.
The following letter front the President to General Fremont has been published:

” WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 11, 1861. “Major-General John C. Fremont:

SIR,—Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, was just received. Assured that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it; the particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in its non-conformity to the act of Congress, passed the 6th of last August, upon the same subjects, and hence I wrote you expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer just received expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed as to conform with and not to transcend the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled ‘An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes’ approved August 6, 1861, and that said act be published at length with this order.

” Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.”

Lincoln the White Supremacist. And the whole issue of not extending slavery to the west was to preserve the "free soil" for whites. That included wiping out the North American Indian:

www.nps.gov/liho/debate4.htm

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Mr. Lincoln’s Speech, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois,” September 18, 1858

www.douglassarchives.org/linc_a89.htm

“Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. ”

Abraham Lincoln, “Cooper Institute Address,” 27 February 1860

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment
www.geocities.com/ghostamendment

The Corwin amendment

uS House of Representatives, 28 February 1861
uS Senate, Adopted Adopted March 2, 1861

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/lincoln1.htm

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861

www.classicallibrary.org/lincoln/greeley.htm

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley, Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862

www.geocities.com/presidentialspeeches/1862.htm

“I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization.”

Abraham Lincoln’, 2nd Annual Message, December 1,1862, Washington, DC

I have been reading and listening to Dr. Paul for years. Dr. Paul has stated that when he answers questions, like the pot issue, he is addressing the issue from a jurisdictional poit of view; at the Federal level, and not at the State level.

Dr. Paul position on pot, whether commercial (bird feed, hemp fiber, medicinal) or recreational, is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to ban it. The Feds could regulate the INTERSTATE commerce but not INTRASTATE. And regulation is not the same as prohibition. Remember, alcohol prohibition required an amendment.