If it's illegal yes. Lincoln didn't kick our butts - unless you consider attacking innocent old men, women and children and starving them into submission to be kicking their butts; nor did he advocate equal rights for all those blacks he wanted to deport/expatriate. Lincoln claimed that the EP was a "war measure", but the issue of seizing private property in time of war had already been decided by the US Supreme Court.
Who said it and when?"Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner by a military officer in a time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it."
If it's illegal yes.
There's a higher law that applies.
Thanks for finally declaring that you don't favor equal rights for all men.
And just in time for Christmas.
Walt
If it's illegal yes. Lincoln didn't kick our butts - unless you consider attacking innocent old men, women and children and starving them into submission to be kicking their butts...
Yeah, that would qualify. It was a thorough butt-whipping.
This is where your position is totally bogus and easily shown to be so.
You won't allow that President Lincoln had to, or was allowed to, take --any-- action to oppose the secessionists. That is just false. But it's why we'll never reach agreement. You won't be reasonable.
I think President Lincoln had the right, responsibility and the power to oppose secession. That is pretty much the judgement of history also.
Given that, just for the sake of argument, you'd have to agree that burning crops, public buildings, and vacant houses (the one first person account I quoted the other day quoted some of Wheeler's men telling this person that her home would not be burned if she stayed in it) is a better course of action than bringing the CSA armies to bettle and killing every soldier. That is all Lincoln could have done, if you don't want his armies striking at the sinews of war.
It's a parallel that I often make with the strategic bombing of Germany. By your lights, since we are not allowed to involve civilians in any way, we'd would have had to fight a fully supplied German Army and Air Force.
Sorry, but it was better to cut off their supply of petroleum products, and more humane in the long run -- just as President Lincoln's policies were.
Walt