Replies

[woodpusher] "Upon the death of Mary Anna Custis, her will bequeathed the estate to her son, George.
Her son George pursued his legal rights to the property with an action of ejectment."
[BroJoeK] The US courts have a long history of restoring property and making reparations to individuals & groups it deems to have been mistreated by the US government -- Indian tribes come to mind first.
After the Civil War Congress paid $ millions in reparations to thousands of Southerners it deemed mistreated.
But there were strict criteria and not everyone who applied was granted payments.

This was not a case of making reparations, compensating the owner for a loss. The rightful owner of the land prevailed in a action of ejectment, an action to restore possession of property to the person entitled to it. Not only must the plaintiff establish a right to possession in himself, but he must also show that the the other party is in wrongful possession. The owner succeeded in a judicial proceeding taken up to the Supreme Court by the United States government after the owner had prevailed in the Circuit Court. The rightful owner won back title to the l,100 acre estate, not reparations for any loss.

As the Court stated, the government, "if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution."

For the owner, it was a Southern honor thing. A few months after obtaining clear title, sale of the property was made to the United States government. Mary Anna Custis' father, George Washington Parke Custis grew up with his grandparents, George and Martha Washington, as an adopted son.

Today, the estate mansion is maintained by your tax dollars via the National Park Service and is best known as the Robert E. Lee memorial. Anna Mary Custis may be more recognizable by her married name, Mrs. Robert E. Lee.

The U.S. government had no long history of returning such property to the family of the leading general of the opposing forces. They fought this one all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.

Further, any judicial opinions that the US Constitution's protections apply equally to citizens loyal to it, and to those in declared war against it, is simple insanity, or Democrat propaganda… but I repeat myself.

Laws believed to be dumb as a box or rocks are still laws, offhand opinions notwithstanding.

The Lieber Code, General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.

The Lieber Code was the government policy on the law of armed conflict at the time. Articles 37 and 38 seem most applicable to slave seizure as property.

Art. 37.
The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses.
Art. 38.
Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Article 14 addressed military necessity.

Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensible for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.

Dept. of the Army, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (Washington: GPO, 1956) para. 3.a., at 4, defined military necessity. [underline added]

Gary D. Solis, in The Law of Armed Conflict, (2010) at p. 258 related,

Napolean reportedly said, "My great maxim has always been, in politics and war alike, that every injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal." His words articulate military necessity.

Gary Solis is a retired Professor of Law of the United States Military Academy, where he directed West Point's Law of War program for six years. He is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, having served twice in Vietnam as company commander. He has a doctorate in the law of war.

3. Basic Principles
a. Prohibitory Efect. The law of war places limits on the exercise of a belligerent's power in the interests mentioned in paragraph 2 and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary for military purposes and that they conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry.
The prohibitory effect of the law of war is not minimized by "military necessity" which has been defined as that principle which justifies those measures not forbidden by international law which are indispensable for securing the complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible. Military necessity has been generally rejected as a defense for acts forbidden by the customary and conventional laws of war inasmuch as the latter have been developed and framed with consideration for the concept of military necessity.
b. Binding on States and Individuals. The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces.

In an Annex to the Hague Convention, Article 46 also addresses private property. This is post-civil war, but generally in accord with the Lieber Code.

Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private Property canot be confiscated.

In modern usage pertaining to the laws of armed conflict (LOAC), civilian members of enemy or occupied territory are considered "protected persons." Civilians are defined negatively as anyone not a member of the armed forces. Persons whose status is unclear are to be treated as civilians.