Replies

he war ended when the treaty was ratified by congress on February 18, 1815.

Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve, 1814 ending all hostilities.

Let me guess, you're a history teacher in the same school as K-S/N-S?

Slave prices - again, a critical constitutional issue pivotal to this discussion. (/sarc) Don't prices usually rise per the economics of supply and demand? Were they not low when slave trade (supply) was booming internationally in the early 19th century, only to rise steeply when international trade was banned, only to drop again in the 1840s and rise sharply again in the 1850s per trends in cotton and the explosion of Southern railroads (demand)? Are you bringing that up because it was one of the issues for secession in Hartford, too?

Ok, so if I rephrase that around 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted (many because of the Proclamation as confirmed by Hooker, Burnside, Grant and other officers), or didn't re-enlist when their terms were up, and enlistments similarly dropped sharply after the Proclamation, despite more financial incentives to join - at which point Lincoln turned to conscription to continue forcing his war on South - does that work for you? How many then ran after being conscripted in, or just didn't fight? I know you'll knit pick everything I say, correct typos, and keep deflecting, since it's the only thing you have to defend your hero, so don't worry if you can't answer.

We've been through the militia act already, yet you distort again. In the 1795 version, the requirement is still:
whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act

So again, which judicial proceedings or marshal efforts proved futile to warrant invoking this? I'm sure you know the act was to allow the raising of the U.S. militia for events a single State militia couldn't handle. You haven't shown the law outlawing secession, so if that's legal, Sumter was in foreign territory. After it was abandoned without casualties, did the South then proceed to attak North, thus warranting the militia? I asked for the specific justification many many posts ago - just another point you want to ignore, despite it being the THE justification you used for Lincoln's war powers.

If you want to keep putting words in my mouth to create your strawmen, so be it, but like I said, it's tiring. You can't even admit to yourself the possibility "your" version of history is as open-and-shut as you think it is. Pure arrogance, which again makes me think you must be a teacher.

Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve, 1814 ending all hostilities.

You might want to read Article 11 of the treaty.By its own terms, it didn't come into force until ratified by both sides. That happened in February. It's fun, though, that your position has gone from arguing that the Convention issued its report years after the war ended, to months after, and now to less than two weeks after it was signed, when no one in the United States knew about it.

Slave prices - again, a critical constitutional issue pivotal to this discussion.

Just another exposition of your ignorance.

Don't prices usually rise per the economics of supply and demand? Were they not low when slave trade (supply) was booming internationally in the early 19th century, only to rise steeply when international trade was banned, only to drop again in the 1840s and rise sharply again in the 1850s per trends in cotton and the explosion of Southern railroads (demand)?

Wait, are you now admitting that the cotton trade drove a boom in slave prices? What happened to "the cotton gin was also rapidly DECREASING the value of slaves to slave-owners" like you said earlier?

Ok, so if I rephrase that around 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted (many because of the Proclamation as confirmed by Hooker, Burnside, Grant and other officers), or didn't re-enlist when their terms were up, and enlistments similarly dropped sharply after the Proclamation, despite more financial incentives to join - at which point Lincoln turned to conscription to continue forcing his war on South - does that work for you?

Yes, that is a fair statement. It's also a far cry from where you started.

So again, which judicial proceedings or marshal efforts proved futile to warrant invoking this? I'm sure you know the act was to allow the raisin

Are you actually going to say that a judicial proceeding would have had any effect? That South Carolina, after seceding before Lincoln even took office, would have listened to a court ruling? Read the law. There's no requirement that a certain level of judicial proceedings fail before the president can invoke his powers under the act. And Lincoln's use of the 1795 act was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases. From that decision:

Whether the President in fulfilling his duties, as Commander- in-chief, in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance, and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him, and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted

You can't even admit to yourself the possibility "your" version of history is as open-and-shut as you think it is.

I'd say the exact same of you. Except I'd use the word "isn't" instead of "is."

Pure arrogance, which again makes me think you must be a teacher.

Wrong again.