[woodpusher] "In The Protector, the Court established the precise date of the start of the war." [BroJoeK] For certain legal purposes
For all legal purposes. For certain locations the date is different as proclamations were issued on more than one date, each pertaining to a seperate group of states.
[BroJoeK] And from The Prize Cases (?) you quoted: "The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces.
Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed."
The date of April 15, 1861 had to be considered. It was considered. The opinion explicitly adopted the date of April 19, 1861 as the start date, and explicitly rejected April 15, 1861 as the start date.
I neither linked or quoted from The Prize Cases. In McStea the Court cited The Prize Cases without quotation. The specific matter you just quoted was linked, cited, and quoted from Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 11. The citation indicates the Opinion starts at 91 U.S. 7, and the quote is from page 91 U.S. at page 11. The link given to page 11 in my #404 goes directly to page 11 of Matthews v. McStea. Supreme Court opinions are officially published in the U.S. Reporter series, available online at the Library of Congress. The link goes to the Library of Congress online publication.
McStea, as quoted, stated,
MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The single question which this record presents for our consideration is, whether a partnership, where one member of therein resided in New York and the others in Louisiana, was dissolved by the war of the rebellion prior to April 23, 1861. That the civil war had an existence commencing before that date must be accepted as an established fact. ...
No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April....
It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19....
in a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war.
The start date was established fact in McStea in 1875 because it had been established in The Protector in 1871.
McStea held the war started on April 19, 1861 as set by the precedent in The Protector, but that the partnership between members in NY and LA had not been dissolved by that fact. Lincoln's proclamation of blockade was legally the start of the war, but it only prohibited commercial intercourse at the ports by the blockade. Commercial intercourse between individuals, Union and Confederate, had not been prohibited.
The Prize Cases syllabus, publishing the holdings, at 67 U.S. 635 (1862) provides,
7. The present civil war between the United States and the so called Confederate States, has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war; and they have, therefore, the right jure bello to institute a blockade of any ports in possession of the rebellious States. 8. The proclamation of blockade by the President is of itself conclusive evidence that a state of war existed, which demanded and authorized recourse to such a measure.
For a state of war to exist, the rest of the world has to be informed that there is a war, and not just a civil disturbance. The Prize Cases cite to the proclamation of a blockade which is an act of war, not to the proclamation ordering combinations of persons to disperse, which pertains to a civil disturbance.
The real truth here is that Democrats have been waging war against the US Constitution, in one form or another, since Day One in 1787, when they voted against ratification and have been working to destroy its original intentions ever since.
In 1787, there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists, but no political parties. Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton all favored the Constitution. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Jefferson and Madison in the 1790s. This split into the Democratic Party (1828-) and the Whig Party (b. 1833 d. 1856). The Republican Party was founded in 1854, replacing the Whig Party.
The leaders attempting to destroy or mutilate the Constitution shortly after ratification were primarily of the New England school of constitutional interpretation. While Hamilton favored ratification, it was the Hamiltonians who won out at using the courts to change the Constitution by creative interpretation. The post civil war radical republicans changed the relationship of the Federal government to the States with the 14th Amendment.
The Civil War was an important campaign in Democrats' centuries' long war, a war which seems now to be nearing it's climactic conclusion & victory by Democrats over our Founders' Constitution.
Although there is crossover, the Constitution is by the Framers rather than the Founders.
The victory of the Framers' Constitution is a done deal. The Federal government does not resemble what the Framers created. The post Civil War amendments converted the Framers' Constitution into something new. The 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments change the relationship of the Federal and State governments, change the permissible methods of taxation, and eliminate the Senate as a body representing the State legislatures. The Supreme Court has interpreted things into the Constitution that the Framers never knew were there. The interstate commerce clause hardly knows any limits at all, although the Obama administration did find one when it tried to use the commerce clause to penalize those who did not purchase private health insurance. But do not grow too much wheat.
woodpusher quoting McStea:
"It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war.
The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19....
in a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war." Legalese... important for some purposes, not for others.
I'm reminded of Von Clausewitz's maxim:
"War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."
Expanded on by Mao Zedong:
"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
Politics with threats of bloodshed began long before April 19, 1861.
Whatever the legal status, the historical fact remains that Democrats have been at war or "politics" against the US Constitution since Day One, when they voted against ratification.
woodpusher: "In 1787, there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists, but no political parties.
Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton all favored the Constitution.
The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Jefferson and Madison in the 1790s."
Jefferson is usually listed among the anti-Federalists.
After ratification in 1788:
"Some [anti-Federalist] activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790–91 to oppose the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; this group soon became the Democratic-Republican Party.[6]"
Those ex-anti-Federalists included James Monroe, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, George Mason & Patrick Henry among the better known.
All joined Jefferson's Anti-Administration Party and some went on to become Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, aka "Democratics".
As "Democratics" before 1800 they claimed to favor "strict construction" of the new Constitution against alleged Federalists' "monarchism".
But elected to power in 1801 Jeffersonians eventually supported every major Federalist initiative they had previously opposed, along with some even they acknowledged were unconstitutional, i.e., the Louisiana Purchase.
In this they established their rule to this day, that "strict construction" only applies to our Democratics' opponents, not to themselves -- the Double Standard.
