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.
[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.
The Protector, 79 U.S. 700
The Syllabus, which recites the holdings within the Opinion:
1. The beginning and termination of the late rebellion in reference to acts of limitation, is to be determined by some public act of the political department. 2. The war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States.
3. Its commencement in certain States will be referred to the first proclamation, of blockade embracing them, and made on the 19th April, 1861; and as to other States to the second proclamation of blockade embracing them, and made on the 27th April, 1861.
4. Its termination as to certain States will be referred to the proclamation of the 2d April, 1866, declaring that the war had closed in those States, and as to Texas to the proclamation of the 20th August, 1866, declaring it had closed in that State also.
5. Alabama was one of the States named in the first proclamation of blockade, and the first proclamation as to the termination of the war.
6. Accordingly an appeal from a decree by the Circuit Court of Alabama "of the 5th April, 1861, which was filed in the clerk’s office on the 17th May, 1871, was dismissed; it being held on the principles above stated, that more than five years had elapsed between the date of the decree and the filing of the appeal, allowing the suspension of the time produced by the war.
To show that these are, in fact, directly on point holdings, the full text of the Opinion of the Court in The Protector is presented.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The question, in the present case is, when did the rebellion begin and end? In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?
Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second, of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed; one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas. In the absence of more certain criteria, of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the States mentioned in them. Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d of April, 1866. More than five years, therefore, had elapsed from the close of the war till the 17th of May, 1871, when this appeal was brought. The motion to dismiss, therefore, must be
Granted.
Grunting Harummmmpph! and proclaiming "legalese" does not cut it. Juvenile gestures do not reverse U.S. Supreme Court holdings.
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."
I am reminded the United States law is found in the Constitution, Federal statutes, and Court opinions, but not in the musings of Von Clausewitz or Chairman Mao.
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.
The historical fact is that on Day One, Democrats did not exist.
The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Jefferson and Madison in the 1790s."Jefferson is usually listed among the anti-Federalists.
Under the Constitution, Jefferson served as the first Secretary of State. As your beloved Wikipedia states, "Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose the Federalist Party during the formation of the First Party System." The Democratic-Republican Party opposed the Federalist PARTY and did not exist prior to the 1790s.
At the Framing, the Federalists supported ratification of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification.
And Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, co-authored the Federalist Papers, a pseudonymous marketing campaign to sell the Constitution to the people of New York.
Your point, if you have one?