[Grand Old Partisan]

The President did not wage war, which is for actions against foreign countries, which the Confederacy was not. He had no need to call Congres into session for a declaration of war against the rebels anymore than the President today would have to before taking action against Islamic militants seeking to secede from the United States.

[GOPcapitalist]

The President did not wage war, which is for actions against foreign countries, which the Confederacy was not.

By Lincoln's own definition of February 15, 1861, he waged a military invasion of the southern states. That constitutes a war by any reasonable definition. That you would attempt to make the argument that the civil WAR was not really a war is itself amusing, though nevertheless absurd.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] The President did not wage war, which is for actions against foreign countries, which the Confederacy was not.

The United States Supreme Court dissenting.

LINK

"THE PRIZE CASES"

U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)

THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.

December Term, 1862

* * *

Mr. Justice GRIER.

There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.

They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?

2d. Was the property of persons domiciled or residing within those States a proper subject of capture on the sea as 'enemies' property?'

I. Neutrals have a right to challenge the existence of a blockade de facto, and also the authority of the party exercising the right to institute it. They have a right to enter the ports [67 U.S. 635, 666] of a friendly nation for the purposes of trade and commerce, but are bound to recognize the rights of a belligerent engaged in actual war, to use this mode of coercion, for the purpose of subduing the enemy.

That a blockade de facto actually existed, and was formally declared and notified by the President on the 27th and 30th of April, 1861, is an admitted fact in these cases.

That the President, as the Executive Chief of the Government and Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, was the proper person to make such notification, has not been, and cannot be disputed. The right of prize and capture has its origin in the 'jus belli,' and is goverend and adjudged under the law of nations. To legitimate the capture of a neutral vessel or property on the high seas, a war must exist de facto, and the neutral must have knowledge or notice of the intention of one of the parties belligerent to use this mode of coercion against a port, city, or territory, in possession of the other.

Let us enquire whether, at the time this blockade was instituted, a state of war existed which would justify a resort to these means of subduing the hostile force.

War has been well defined to be, 'That state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force.'

The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations. 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.