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.
And how do you know this? And how was all the other property also not being used to make war on the United States?
If seizure is the normal response, then the normal response should have been to seize it all.
By their own words and desires, The Confederates were no longer citizens of the United States.
What they say on the matter is of no import, because the Lincoln position was that they were and always remained so. If they were no longer citizens of the US, then it can't be an "insurrection", can it?
If they were and remained citizens of the US, as Lincoln claimed in order to justify his invasion, then they remained under the rights and protection of the US constitution.
You cannot unilaterally proclaim them all "guilty" simply for being in the territory of an "insurrected" state. Each one must be adjudicated, and each one must receive "due process."
You can then legally take the property of the guilty, and spare the property of the innocent.
Proclaiming all in a region "guilty" without trial, is the act of a dictator. It is also in no manner constitutional.