Replies

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that secession was outside the law in The Prize Cases (1862). The president's powers were adequate to put down the rebellion under the Militia Act of 1792, which was cited by the Court in the majority ruling.

DiLorenzo is just preying on the ignorant by incompletely rehashing events, the history of which are readily available in the record.

Walt

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that secession was outside the law in The Prize Cases (1862).

First of all, it was 1863. Secondly, it was not unanimous. Thirdly, the "Prize Cases" decided nothing about secession and made no attempt to. It was strictly about whether or not Lincoln had the authority to post the blockade since Congress had not declared war when he did it. In the "Prize Cases", the Supreme Court only decided that war existed between the two parties and that the president had the authority to react to a state of war before congressional declaration. No decision was made in regards to the legality or illegality of secession, and they did not declare the war to be an illegal insurrection. Those points were not the issue, and they avoided them.

The president's powers were adequate to put down the rebellion under the Militia Act of 1792, which was cited by the Court in the majority ruling.

The Militia act was 1795, not 1792. They cited it and the one of 1807 to show the president had authority to react to a state of war before Congressional declaration. They did not brand the war an illegal insurrection as you deceitfully suggest. From the majority decision:

"he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States. If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be "unilateral."

Also:

"The president was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name, and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact."

Once again, they only decided that a state of war existed and the President has the duty to react before Congressional declaration. The type or nature of that war was immaterial to the issue at hand. It seems you are completely rehashing events, the history of which are readily available in the record.