To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
If you accept the flawed claim that secession is "insurrection", then you can make an argument for using the military to put down the "insurrection".
But how do you go from putting down an insurrection to a blanket seizure of "property" for the entire region? Especially in light of Article 4, section 2?
What about "due process"? Or is everyone within some geographical region automatically guilty and convicted of crimes against the state?
Suppose the order was to seize all farms, or all horses, or all gold or silver? What is the difference between that and what was done?
whether rebellion, insurrection or war. The President is the C in C.
“But how do you go from putting down an insurrection to a blanket seizure of “property” for the entire region?”
That property was used to make war on the United States.
Any actions to interfere with the use of that “property” in making war on the United States is a within the powers of the President authority as C in C
“What about “due process”? Or is everyone within some geographical region automatically guilty and convicted of crimes against the state?”
By their own words and desires, The Confederates were no longer citizens of the United States. Therefore they are not entitled to the protections of the laws of the United States.
“Suppose the order was to seize all farms, or all horses, or all gold or silver? What is the difference between that and what was done?”
You may want to re read the initial article in this thread.
No difference at all.