"Contraband of war" was well understood and practiced at least since the Revolutionary War -- i.e., Lord Dunmore's and Sir Clinton's proclamations.
In 1861 Unionists early-on understood that defeating the Confederacy could require destroying their power-base, slavery.
And arguably, Union anti-slavery actions were instrumental in driving many Southerners to support the Confederacy and its war efforts.
So, yes Virginia, when Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter, he chose a war against Confederates' "peculiar institution".
“”Contraband of war” was well understood and practiced at least since the Revolutionary War — i.e., Lord Dunmore’s and Sir Clinton’s proclamations.”
You made quite a mess of your earlier argument that Lincoln fought a war to “free the slaves” in Delaware. He didn’t.
Now you have decided to improve your argument by favorably comparing Abraham Lincoln to King George, and Robert E. Lee to George Washington.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to that view, but wonder why you think the contraband argument improves your long-standing claim that the north “fought to free the slaves” because of moral imperatives.
So, yes Virginia, when Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter, he chose a war against Confederates' "peculiar institution".
No Virginia, President Lincoln chose war with his Proclamation of April 19, 1865.
When South Carolina repelled a Federal government invasion force on April 12, 1861, it chose to defend the state from invasion.
Article 4, Section 4 provided, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
There was never any application from the South Carolina legislature for the Federal forces to come on down. Neither had South Carolina, or any other state, been invaded. There was no declaration of insurrection until April 19, 1861.
The Federal invading force was clearly not authorized under Article 4 of the Constitution.
The words "coercion'' and "invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words — not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them — what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is "coercion''? What is "invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
— President-Elect Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861, CW 4:195, Speech from the Balcony of the Bates House at Indianapolis, Indiana
- - - - - - - - - -
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=480
ANNALS OF CONGRESSNINTH CONGRESS.
SESS. II. CH. 39, 1807.
Page 443
STATUTE II.
March 3, 1807.
CHAP. XXXIX.-- An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state, or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
APPROVED, March 3, 1807.
April 15, 1861By the President of the United States
A Proclamation.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
[...]
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
It should be noted that there were no courts, or marhals of courts, to assist. All officials had resigned.
Note well that this was not to put down an insurrection. It was not to suppress actions of a State. It was to suppress actions of combinations of persons within a state, who assertedly opposed and obstructed the execution of certain laws, namely laws for the collection of the revenue.
The Proclamation of April 15, 1861 speaks not to a state insurrection, but to combinations of persons.
In any case, the Proclamation to combinations of persons came days after the attempted invasion of South Carolina.
In his proclamation of April 15, 1861, Lincoln affirmatively proclaimed that the law was being opposed by combinations of persons (not States).
The U.S. Supreme Court considered that proclamation and found Lincoln proclaimed an insurrection to exist on April 19, 1861.
Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 11 (1875) regarding the Proclamation of April 15, 1861:
Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade. Even then, the war was only inferentially recognized; and the measures proposed were avowed to be "with a view to . . . the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled." The reference here was plainly to citizens of the insurrectionary States; and the purpose avowed appears to be inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies, and consequently debarred from intercourse with the inhabitants of States not in insurrection.
If the said combinations were not public enemies on April 15, 1861, but were to be afforded treatment due to friends, what was the legal justification for a military invasion force on April 12, 1861?
As the measures were avowed to be with a view to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, such as running a plantation and maintaining their slaves, how was April 12, 1861 about a war against slavery? It was an action to aid the non-existent marshals of the non-existent courts to collect the revenue.
There is Federal law that would directly apply, but it is derived from an Act of July 29, 1861. The Congress was called into session on July 4, 1861 and 25 days later had rewritten the law on the use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authorityWhenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Source Credit
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §332; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered §252, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
DERIVATION
Act July 29, 1861, ch. 25, §1, 12 Stat. 281.