So. It's obiter dicta. Grier had already stated that the Confederacy - as a matter of fact - had 'cast off their allegiance' to the federal government. He also recognized the duality of that allegiance,
'The co-existence of Federal and State sovereignties, and the double allegiance of the people of the States, which no statesman or lawyer has doubted till now, and which this Court has repeatedly recognized as lying at the foundation of some of its most important decisions; the delegation of special and limited powers to the Federal Government, with the express reservation of all other powers 'to the States and the people thereof' who created the Union and established the Constitution.'I previously posted the US law (1 Stat. 112, 1790) covering treason, which states taht it applies ONLY to, 'any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America'. No treason could be possible for the Confederacy.
Grier also states,
'When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declared their independence; have cast off their allegiance; have organized armies; have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war.' [emphasis mine]Belligerents. A war. Not a rebellion. It was made into a public war, aided by none other than Lincoln himself. A blockade is an international act demanding foreign recognition that a war exists, else the captures at prize are nullities.
Even Grier admits it was a war:
'But it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents, claims sovereign rights as against the other.'Again, the proof is by the actions. The union and the Confederacy exercised belligerents rights,
'[T]he parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.'
The kicker? Grier wrote that the 'parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations.'
A legal recognition of secession.
"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called 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.
All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used toincrease the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."
Secession is revolution and treason, and Grier doesn't say anything else.
Walt