Replies

People in rebellion, or at war against the United States, did not receive full protection of the Constitution, especially in matters relating to confiscations & "contraband".

I don't recall the "rebellion clause" giving you permission to ignore what the constitution tells *YOU* to do. It's understandable that the people who are breaking away from it might not obey it, but why would the people who are supposedly fighting a war to "save" the constitution, not adhere to it?

I guess Lincoln's thinking went something like this:

"You are breaking the Union created by the Constitution, therefore we shall go to war on you, and to show you we mean business, we will deliberately defy the constitution in pursuit of our war against you "rebels"."

"We have to break the law to save it. "

Yeah, that makes sense.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't recall the "rebellion clause" giving you permission to ignore what the constitution tells *YOU* to do.
It's understandable that the people who are breaking away from it might not obey it, but why would the people who are supposedly fighting a war to 'save' the constitution, not adhere to it? "

No, what's understandable is that both sides waged war according to rules of war well understood at the time.
That included, for both sides, confiscations of property deemed "contraband".

DiogenesLamp: "I guess Lincoln's thinking went something like this: ...
..."We have to break the law to save it."
Yeah, that makes sense."

Except that no laws of war, as understood at the time, were broken.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't recall the 'rebellion clause' giving you permission to ignore what the constitution tells *YOU* to do.
It's understandable that the people who are breaking away from it might not obey it, but why would the people who are supposedly fighting a war to 'save' the constitution, not adhere to it? "

First, we should note here DiogenesLamp's inner-Democrat peaking out, despite his contrary claims.
We see here the inner-Democrat expressing a Democrat First Principle, namely, the double standard -- one set of rules (I.e., the Constitution) for thee, but different rules (or better yet, no rules) for me.

DiogenesLamp wishes us to buy his claims that whatsoever Confederates did was A-OK, because they were unbound by anything like the U.S. Constitution, but whatsoever Unionists did was wrong because DiogenesLamp can very imaginatively interpret the Constitution to forbid it.

Inner-Democrat, DiogenesLamp as they say: if not for your Double Standards, you'd have no standards at all.

Second, the answer here & elsewhere is the 1807 Insurrection Law, passed by Southerners in Congress, signed by Southern President Jefferson.
It says, in part:

"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy... "

The language is pretty broad, and was approved by Southerners themselves, at a time when they expected it would be used to suppress secession & rebellion, in New England.
I think it's perfectly adequate to cover Lincoln's actions of 1861, and answer DiogenesLamp's inner-Democrat interpretations.