[4CJ]

Confiscating property used to support an illegal rebellion is a different matter entirely, as the Supreme Court found in a post war decision. So of course I support the Administration's decision in this area.

The problem for you is that it was illegal BEFORE the war, and declared LEGAL in 1870. Thus it was ILLEGAL DURING the war.

If you care to continue this tack, I'll state that unilateral secession was legal BEFORE the war, and only declared illegal AFTER the war. Thus secession, was not illegal before or during the war.

[Non-Sequitur]

The problem for you is that it was illegal BEFORE the war, and declared LEGAL in 1870. Thus it was ILLEGAL DURING the war.

Different matters. In the earlier case the property had not been used in a rebellion against the government.

If you care to continue this tack, I'll state that unilateral secession was legal BEFORE the war, and only declared illegal AFTER the war. Thus secession, was not illegal before or during the war.

You would be wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

The problem for you is that it was illegal BEFORE the war, and declared LEGAL in 1870. Thus it was ILLEGAL DURING the war.

Besides, the 5th Amendment says that you cannot be deprived of property without due process. Well, Miller's property was seized on order of the court after the government presented its evidence that Miller did actively support the rebellion.