“Are we debating truth or are we debating power?”
I was stating a fact. You may call it what ever you like.
But prove by something other than you opinion that the Confiscation Act of 1861 was unconstitutional.
I am hiding behind nothing. The Courts allow the President and Congress broad power in the prosecution of war. Not all of the actions allowed during war would be tolerated in peacetime. The Emancipation proclamation, the Confiscation Act were tolerated as necessary to prosecute a war. Just as the Courts allow the Government to draft a person into the Army or throw 120,000 American citizens in concentration camps because of their ethnic background.
Since the 11 states of the Confederacy did not consider themselves to be a part of the United States, it was not unreasonable for the Federal Government to determine that the protections of the Constitution did not apply toward the Confederate States of America or its citizens. In this the Supreme Court acquiesced. Sorta like the logic behind the prison for terrorists in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Even though in the custody of the United States Government, full protection of the Constitution does not apply because Gitmo it is not part of the United States
You mean other than the clear wording of Article IV, Section 2? Gee, how do I "prove" that a constitutional clause overrides an act of Congress. Well since the Constitution says so, I would figure that would be good enough, but since we are ignoring what the Constitution says in deference to a Congressional Law, then that sort of creates a logical vicious circle, doesn't it?
I'm going to skip reading the rest of what you wrote. If you aren't going to be serious, then I don't see any reason for me to be either.