Think about it Walt. If the Confederacy had cast off her allegiance to the union, to make war on "their" government would mean they were fighting themselves. If they have cast off allegiance to the US they cannot be traitors (not owing allegiance and receiving protection from the US). If still US citizens, their property is protected by the Constitution, and the government owes recompense (violation of the 5th Amendment).
The Militia Act only applies to states that are members of the Union, not foreign countries. Grier et al held the Confederacy to be a nation by virtue of application of International law.
The reason for the huge delay by Lincoln before convening Congress is contained within the Militia Act itself - "the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
Apparently not.
It certainly doesn't say that.
Walt
Think about it Walt.
I don't need to think about it and I don't need to prove squat to you. They were traitors because the Supreme Court -said- they were traitors.
Walt
No, he said it was --as if-- it were a nation. It was this rationale that allowed captured rebels to be treated as POW's and not just hung outright.
Justice Grier's ruling states that the president is authorized --by U.S. law-- to put down the rebellion.
He also flatly calls the secessionists enemies and traitors.
Spin your blue smoke and mirrors somewhere else.
Walt
Julius Rosenburg threw off his allegience to the US also. He was electrocuted for treason.
Walt
"BTW, I have finally come up with the killer argument against the use of the 10th Amendment to support secession. I have always believed that secession is not one of the rights "reserved" to the States because the 10th Amendment (and the 9th to boot) merely express the truism that the federal government is a government of limited powers, namely, that it is limited to the powers expressly enumerated in the Constitution. It means that whatever has not been delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the People.
When for example, the South attempted to secede in the 1860's, it was the same as a declaration that the U.S. Constitution no longer applied to the Confederate States. It is inconsistent to claim a right to secede under the 10th Amendment, while claiming the document no longer has any force or effect. It is the same as if one sued for breach of contract, claiming that one has enforceable rights under the contract, while also suing for rescission of the contract for failure of the other party or parties to the contract to keep their end of the bargain. A court would be bound to rule that it is inconsistent to seek both remedies at the same time; and that the plaintiff could have one remedy or the other, but not both. The same is true of claiming constitutional rights under a document that one claims no longer has any application.
But that is not the most important, or even the best argument, against claiming a constitutional right to secede. The best argument is by posing this hypothesis:
Let us assume that the Constitution was amended to explicitly exclude secession as a legal right of the States, and that the President and or Congress could act to prevent any attempt at secession. In this scenario, one could say that secession or revolution (and I use the terms interchangeably as Madison did, depending on whether the action was for cause or not) would no longer be reserved to the States or the People by the express terms of the 10th Amendment. As such, there would be no reserved right to secede.
So, would such an amendment, if ever enacted, really deprive the People or the States of the right to revolt or secede? The answer is a resounding, "No." Why? Because the right to revolt is a "self-evident" right inherent in every social compact resulting in the formation of a government. That is what the Declaration of Independence was all about. That is what Madison was talking about, as discussed above. That is what Jefferson said elsewhere in his writings. In short, the Constitution could never prohibit the right to secede, even if it were to be explicitly stated in that document.
My point is that the 10th Amendment is too slender a reed upon which to hang the right of revolution. That right exists with or without the Constitution, and with or without any affirmative declaration or prohibition against the exercise of that right in it. It is the most fundamental right of any community of People to decide for themselves their own form of government and to change it if the government is destructive to the inherent rights of man. Until it is destructive, however, the People have a duty to preserve it.
...The secession/revolution of 1861 did not hold a candle to the revolution of 1776 as a revolution for cause. Interestingly enough, the most persuasive argument against secession, as well as the most persuasive argument as to why secession was wrong, came from none other than the Vice President of the CSA, Alexander H. "Little Alex" Stephens. He answered the arguments of Mr. Toombs persuasively before the Georgia Convention when he said Georgia still had a viable alternative in (1) remaining in the Union and fighting it out in Congress; and (2) enacting its own retaliatory legislation to combat the perceived abuses of the Northern States.
In the declaration of causes for secession, the States that furnished such causes gave two basic reasons for secession: (1) that Northern STATES did not abide by their bargain in the compact; and (2) that the newly elected executive was so hostile to the interests of the South that it was inevitable that he would further intensify the hostility. The first reason was no reason to leave the Union, because it did not complain about the federal government's failure to maintain the compact, and it did not say that any petition was made to rectify the problem, much less that the federal government would do nothing to solve the problem.
The second typical ground was no ground at all, given that Mr. Lincoln had, up to the time of the declaration of secession by several of the soon-to-be Confederate States, done nothing to establish the legitimacy of the view that he was so hostile to the interests of the South that he would carry through with the acts feared by the southern conventions. His first inaugural address should, instead, have laid those fears to rest.
So, given the above analysis, with which I am sure that Walt would agree in whole or in part, I genuinely doubt that Walt would agree, as you have said, that "the secession of 1861 had the same legal basis as the revolution of 1776 . . ." Assuming that Walt would agree with even the inherent right to revolt as expounded by Madison and Jefferson, I'm sure he would agree that a legitimate secession/revolution would have to be for cause, namely intolerable oppression, or that it would not be legitimate at all. Since the Southern States did not secede for a good cause, based on intolerable oppression which could not be redressed through the existing system, the grounds for secession did not form a legal basis for revolution.
Cheers y'all."
--From a newsgroup
Walt
No he didn't.
"It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an "insurrection" by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations."
And:
"The true test of its existence, as found in the writings of the sages of the common law, may be thus summarily stated: When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts of Justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists, and hostilities may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign enemies invading the land."
You'll say anything. But most of it is wrong, and you know it.
Walt