Replies

Easily answered. Article I, Section 5: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." If Congress sets qualifications for seating members of states that participated in the rebellion then they are within their power to do so.

You answered easily, but your answer demonstrates an ignorance of basic constitutional law. Under Article I, each house is the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its members, but Congress cannot add its own qualifications and then judge them. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 at 550 (1969) Oh, and the Fourteenth Amendment was not "ratified" until 1868, so the prohibition in that against Confederates holding office in the Congress did not legally apply at the end of the Civil War when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. If the Confederate States could not legally secede, then all of the Reconstruction laws were plainly illegal, including forcing them to pass constitutional amendments to regain their representation in Congress which constitutionally, could not be lost.

The unmistakable conclusion is that the South had seceded from the Union, and was only brought back at the point of a gun. Chase's opinion simply put a constitutional veneer on the war from the winning side, and, again, his opinion is counterfactual historically.

You answered easily, but your answer demonstrates an ignorance of basic constitutional law.

Based on your interpretation of it? I feel pretty comfortable with my positions.

but Congress cannot add its own qualifications and then judge them. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 at 550 (1969)

A decision 100 years later? So the actions in 1869 were correct based on established precedent at the time.

Oh, and the Fourteenth Amendment was not "ratified" until 1868, so the prohibition in that against Confederates holding office in the Congress did not legally apply at the end of the Civil War when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.

Based on what law? The Fourteenth Amendment added the prohibition to the Constitution and ensured it could not be overturned by Congress. It didn't make it illegal before ratification.

f the Confederate States could not legally secede, then all of the Reconstruction laws were plainly illegal, including forcing them to pass constitutional amendments to regain their representation in Congress which constitutionally, could not be lost.

If the Southern acts of secession were illegal, and they were, then their actions were insurrection and Congress had the power to combat the rebellion and enact sanctions on the losing side.

The unmistakable conclusion is that the South had seceded from the Union, and was only brought back at the point of a gun.

As you Lost Causer all like to say The fact of the matter is the majority of the people in the U.S. at the time recognized the Southern acts for what they were, rebellion. The rest of the world recognized them as rebellion. And history has shown them to be correct.