Firstly, there is a "due process" provision in the Constitution. You have to determine if someone has committed a crime before you can take their property.
What the 5th Amendment says is "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Confiscation acts were law.
You have to determine if someone has committed a crime before you can take their property.
Apparently not in your imaginative interpretation. We're not talking about a simple crime. What you overlook is that the Southerners were waging a rebellion against the U.S. and that Southern citizens were belligerents in that rebellion. Therefore their property, and that of neutrals if they were in the territory of the belligerent, can be subject to seizure without compensation. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional in that.
Secondly, "Secession in not Rebellion." (Chief Justice Samuel P. Chase.)
No, rebellion is rebellion. And rebellion was what the Southern states were engaged in during the 1861 to 1865 period.
<1>Lincoln tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! (Doodle will tell you the Federal Marshall bodyguard made the whole thing up, but there is other corroborating evidence indicating it really happened.)
Doodle will also point out that no such arrest warrant was ever served, no copy has ever been found, and not a single one of Chief Justice Taney's biographers found enough credible evidence to include anything about the Taney arrest warrant in any of their books. Fake news from the Lost Cause Book of Fairy Tales.
So after trying to arrest a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the court became Lincoln's lapdog and would do anything he asked them to do.
One of DiogenesLamp's favorite whines, vintage 2022.
The truth? Yeah, it doesn't change, and for people who don't like it, it sounds like the same old "crap" again.
Huh???
So you can overturn The Constitution by writing a law that says you don't have to follow The Constitution...???
Wow... Doddle...
I read your whole diatribe. Man, do you have it all backwards.
Are you sure you want to belong on FREE Republic? Where we like FREEdom?
As he said- the south were not ‘rebelling’ they were seceding. They posed no threat to Washington, until Washington made war on them.
They were seceding AS THEY WERE PROMISED they would be able to do.
I have said it often, the civil war (the first, and last I hope) was more about states rights than anything else. Slavery was just a vehicle.
Imagine that if, instead of being forced to end slavery, they were forced to do something else- like buy health insurance...
It’s the same thing. The federal government was forcing them to do something other that was was specifically given in the enumerated powers.