None of these was a misstatement.
~ The Constitution did not authorize conscription. Madison made the framers' intent specific, in portions of The Federalist that discussed the militia: The sole national authority was for the rules of engagement (to borrow the current term of art) to be made standard across all state militias by Congress, including training and discipline standards and permitted weaponry. This was to allow the various militias to work together in matters of tools and organization, when this was required and authorized by Congress. (Or the federal or state executives, when it would "not admit of delay.") All other matters, including the selection of officers, were explicitly left in the hands of the states.
Madison both pointed out that the states and localities had long been granted the ability to compel militia participation, and disavowed any intention for Congress to trample on that prerogative -- except for the same emergency cases of "rebellion or invasion" that allowed the Congress to act to suspend habeas corpus. (Lincoln did so two years in advance of Congress doing so.)
Any conscription was thus placed in the hands of the states, and this was a prime example of a power that was "reserved" under the 10th Amendment.
~ The legislative history of the (second) 13th Amendment showed considerable revulsion to the excesses both of the anti-draft riots, which nearly burned down New York City, and of what the Radical Republicans feared would be a use of militias in readmitted states against freed blacks. Conscription was, by then, seen as a tool that states could easily misuse.
This aversion on the part of Congress led to the phrase "nor involuntary servitude" being added after the 13th's prohibition of slavery -- for it was, in fact, not redundant. Unfortunately, this distinction was blithely disregarded in the case law for the only challenge to conscription to come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Selective Draft Law Cases of 1918-1919. SCOTUS simply knuckled under to the supposed necessity of the Congress having supremacy on military issues, and refused to examine the rationales for the 13th Amendment.
~ The New York and other state militias were federalized to put down the anti-draft riots only by a tortured twisting of the term "rebellion." Even the governor of New York did not go so far as to use that term. Lincoln asserted it and refused to seek congressional sanction, even though nothing prevented his doing so.
It was Lincoln's diversion to Manhattan of both militiamen and U.S. regulars, from campaigns in Virginia against the Confederacy, that greatly turned up the heat of the protests. This created the (literal) firestorms that would very likely have been avoided, out of the rioters' sheer exhaustion, had Lincoln simply left matters to the New York State authorities in the first place. The defiance of Lincoln's draft, however, had challenged him on the home front in a way that could not be fully hidden, even in sympathetic newspapers, and this was a P.R. failure that he felt he could not tolerate. Thus was a fully competent Congress once again simply bypassed, as an American emperor would do.
I'm not surprised that you and others don't know about these aspects of the anti-draft riots, though, as that entire episode has been largely suppressed in the aftermath of the Union's victory, and its rewriting of textbooks. I look forward to seeing a small restoration of that facet of history in the story of Scorsese's "Gangs of New York."
Which is exactly how the draft was handled by both sides. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
What set them off were democrat scare stories about Lincoln sending "four million contraband blacks" to New York to take their jobs away. It was a full court propaganda press by Mayor Woods and Tamneny Hall.
Read the real history for a change, not the polished stuff created years after the fact to soothe guilty consciences and heal reputations. You'll see that the Democrats played the same damn politics of division and racial hatred in 1863 as they do today. They just deal from the other side of the deck now. Al Sharpton is nothing new in New York politics. He continues the most sacred and time honored traditions of the Democrat Party.
Nor does it forbid it. The Constitution requires the government to provide for a common defense (Preamble), to raise and support an army (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12), and to provide and maintain a Navy (Article I, Section 8, Clause 13). The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that conscription is a valid means of achieving these goals. I should note that the Constitution does not authorize a Marine Corps or an Air Force. I suppose you would suggest we do away with them?
I look forward to seeing a small restoration of that facet of history in the story of Scorsese's "Gangs of New York."
And you can back it up with that other great historical reference, "Gone With The Wind."
It ain't there.
I can't believe that piece of crap movie has been nominated for best picture.
Walt
It allows for the Congress to provide for the general wefare and common defense, which it did from 1861-65.
Walt