Replies

The import of the dissenting opinion was that only the Congress, not the president, could prosecute the war.

You had said, 'The Supreme Court said the president had the power to act.' The dissent states that not until Congress passed the Act of 13 Jul 1861 could he act, and that the Militia Acts conferring him the authority to act were 'simply a monstrous exaggeration.'

Every Justice thought the government had the power to put down the rebellion against the lawful government.

The Constitution in Article 1 § 8 delegates Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.'

In Grier's opinion he states, 'The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations.' And again, ' Several of these States have combined to form a new confederacy, claiming to be acknowledged by the world as a sovereign State. Their right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.' He doesn't state that their right to do so is unconstitutional nor illegal. The majority call it war in every case. Against a foreign nation. That being the case, Article 1 § 8 would apply only to 'repel invasion', yet it was Lincoln who invaded a sovereign, independent country.