Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

Wrong.

Again.

Supreme Court, in 1862

"It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations." [62 US 635, 669]

"The law of nations is also called the law of nature; it is founded on the common consent, as well as the common sense, of the world. It contains no such anomalous doctrine as that which this Court are now for the first time desired to pronounce, to-wit, that insurgents who have risen in rebellion against their sovereign, expelled her Courts, established a revolutionary government, organized armies, and commenced hostilities are not enemies because they are traitors, and a war levied on the Government by traitors, in order to dismember and destroy it, is not a war because it is an 'insurrection.' [62 US 635, 670]

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

Could that be more clear?

 

Want more?

In White v Hart, 1871, the court declared "The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason"

In the 1862 Prize case, the court described the confederates as having "cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are nonetheless enemies because they are traitors".

In Hickman v Jones 1867 the Court said "The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction ... The union of the States, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the States themselves; and nothing but revolutionary violence can, in either case, destroy the ties which hold the parts together. ... The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign."

In Mauran v Insurance Co, 1867 the court declared that "all the proceedings of these eleven states, either severally or in conjunction, by means of which the existing governments were overthrown and new governments erected in their stead, were wholly illegal and void, and that they remained after the attempted separation and change of government, in judgment of law, as completely under all their constitutional obligations as before."

In Thorington v Smith 1868 the Court refereed to Davis's government (the Confederacy) as "unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force".

That's just a sampling of relevant US Supreme Court cases. State Courts had similar rulings

 

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up are you ?

Thorington v Smith 1868, don't even see where the word treason was used. -> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/646/case.html

THORINGTON v. SMITH, (186 -> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/75/1.html

As for Hickman v Jones 1867, looks like you had some Supreme Court Justices ignoring the "law of Nature" and making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, I think it's called legislating from the bench. It's a leftist thing, making (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along. Changing the meaning of the law and the Constitution by bypassing Congress and basically ignoring the amendment process. How can one be a traitor if he hasn't been convicted of treason in a court of law ? SCOTUS decided that a person couldn't be convicted of treason in Confederate States of America court of law. -> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/197/

 

Is there a single post of yours here where you don't get it wrong? I'm not seeing it.

First, look at what I quoted in Thorington v Smith 1868. You then link to White v Hart ...to prove me wrong?

OK, maybe you made a mistake. Let's look at that case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/75/1.html

Ooops. Yep. We see the word treason in there, (missed it?) it basically was saying (what I and every intelligent person knows) -- is you have to win if you're going to take up arms against the government and steal her property. Else, treason.

The quote I produced was correct: the "unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force".

They go on:

"It is very certain that the Confederate government was never acknowledged by the United States as a de facto government in this sense. Nor was it acknowledged as such by other powers. No treaty was made by it with any civilized state. No obligations of a National character were created by it, binding after its dissolution, on the States which it represented, or on the National government. From a very early period of the civil war to its close, it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States."

Aw.

LOL. Activist judges! Good lord.

What part of this are you not comprehending?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

Did the rebels levy war against the US?

Ayyyyyyup.

 

The funniest part about you complaining about the Hickman v Jones case, is that it was a case about the

"prosecution in a so-called "court of the Confederate States of America," for treason in aiding the troops of the United States."

lol.

For those readers who care, another quote from that case:

"The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction. In the eye of the law, it had the same properties as if it had been the insurrection of a county or smaller municipal territory against the state to which it belonged. The proportions and duration of the struggle did not affect its character. Nor was there a rebel government de facto in such a sense as to give any legal efficacy to its acts.

It was not recognized by the national nor by any foreign government. It was not at any time in possession of the capital of the nation. It did not for a moment displace the rightful government.

That government was always in existence, always in the regular discharge of its functions, and constantly exercising all its military power to put down the resistance to its authority in the insurrectionary states. The union of the states, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the states themselves, and nothing but revolutionary violence can in either case destroy the ties which hold the parts together. For the sake of humanity, certain belligerent rights were conceded to the insurgents in arms. But the recognition did not extend to the pretended government of the Confederacy. The intercourse was confined to its military authorities. In no instance was there intercourse otherwise than of this character.

The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign. "

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/197/case.html

 

Which is after the war started, therefore completely irrelevent.

Look, if all you are going to do is insist you are right and everybody else is wrong, ignoring any evidence and not presenting any of your own, this is basically over.
.
Over and over and over you keep bringing up references that did not exist prior to the Civil War.

So one last time, either present some kind of reference prior to the outbreak of the war, or admit that at the time it broke out it was not against the Constitution. Or better yet, show us in the Constitution that it is prohibited to seperate from the United States.

And yes, we have had territory leave the United States plenty of times. If it was not treason for them to leave the United States, why is it treason this time?

Please, relevent discussion and stay on topic, this constant refering to statements and decisions anachronistic to the war is highly irritating.

 

I'm a Libertarian that supports the "Non-Aggression Principle" and the lands of the Native-Americans were taken by force through Acts of Aggression.

Please show me the studies that document economic, social, and political oppression by Native Americans of non-Native Americans in the United States.

 

Oh, you're irritated.

Poor thing.


Look, I've alread told you:


Stealing federal property and taking up arms against the US ---> Is treason.

It is levying war against the US.

Treason against the United States, shall consist in levying War against them.

That's from 1789.

Live it.

Learn it

Love it.

Go on and tell us about this unilateral secession, your "territory leaving the US."

Plenty of times, even!

This should be good.

 

How often has that question been asked ? I actually know the answer.

Was it a rebellion or a war ?

Who started the freaking war if it was a war ?

I'll let Bob Huddleston put in his two cents worth.

Constitution and the Laws of War during the Civil
War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=faculty_scholarship
Live it.

Learn it

:Love it.

 

You read words here and there, but really don't make sense of them or consider the other words around them, or the larger scope.

You are referring to the Prize Cases, which I quoted from earlier. That would be the one that said:

'Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government.

A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents -- the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on.

When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war.

They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/67/635

I suggest you read up more on that SCOTUS case, and the what. why's and decision arrived at.

It dealt with a number of matters, one of it being the authority by the Constitution to declare war and the blockades of the ports, the capture of a neutral vessels, and the "Prize" (hence the name) - of captured ships.

For the short Wiki version:

You should know (or one would hope you do) - Formal war was never declared by Congress. The CSA was recognized as a belligerent power, and the US did not recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy.

The South started the war, officially on April 12th, 1861.

They had however, been committing Acts of War starting in December of 1860.

So now you know the rebels levied war against the US.

 

The first condition was not satisfied by any declarations of secession, so this has no bearing on the subject.

No problem: A1S10 prohibits states from exercising certain powers, which prohibitions any state determined to secede must repudiate ipso facto.

 

Well President Lincoln sure thought it did. He turned to Vattel's when the British and French governments objected to Lincoln's naval blockade of Southern ports claiming that it was a violation on the "Laws of Nature"

So the question was, was it a rebellion or a war ?

If it's a rebellion, then the Southern population, civilians and soldiers alike fall under the protections of the U.S. Constitution. But neither the Union or CSA military would fall under the protections under the international laws of war.

No it doesn't, no where in the 10th Amendment is secession mentioned.

 

Actually I'd say his use of military force indicates precisely the opposite. Wouldn't you?

You are perhaps under the impression he swore an oath to the British and French governments?

No, that is not the question. That is an attempt to steer the conversation down a road to nowhere.

Yes it does.

That is of no moment whatsoever, as no right is congizable under the Constitution that is not exercised under US jurisdiction, which obviously excludes secession - not to mention that 10A itself reaffirms that certain powers over the states are delegated to the US.

 

OMG.

You are so funny. And always, so wrong.

 

First of all, I've actually read Vattel's from cover to cover more than a few times. I actually own a leather bound edition of Vattel's it cost me $400.

Please don't use Wikipedia" as a source, it's written by unqualified people and has adopted PC revisionism some years ago. Wiki should only be used as a starting point for further research. Always go to the talk page to get an idea who were the idiots that contributed to the topic, mostly liberals who don't have a life and spend most of the lives on the internet.. And always pay attention to Wikipedia's own "disclaimers."
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

But I digress:

Excerpt from the courts opinion:

The "American Civil War" or was it "The Great Rebellion" ?

Most of Europe by declaring their neutrality were acknowledging that it was a war between two sovereigns.

May explain Great Britain may have not been so "neutral" when you look at one of the greatest naval hero's of all times that most landlubbers are unaware of, The Captain of the most successful merchant raider in history the sloop-of-war the CSS Alabama, Captain Raphael Semmes, CSA Navy.

Where was the CSS Alabama built ? Would you believe England ?
Where did those British naval guns come from that armed the CSS Alabama ?
Now if the world nations didn't recognized the CSA and it's Navy, Captain Semmes, his crew and the Alabama would have been called pirates and wouldn't have been allowed to make ports of calls all over the world under the protections of the Laws of the Sea and the international laws of war. But they did.

Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to overthrow a President, President Richard M. Nixon but she was caught and was fired for lying and being unethical. Is Hillary a traitor ?

Obama's friends, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn were terrorist who were trying to overthrow the U.S. government, set bombs off at the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon even murdered some cops but show me a progressive who likes cops ? Are Obama's friends Bill and Bernardine traitors ?

"Hanoi" Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden actually traveled to the enemy, North Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to the enemy, are they traitors ?

There was the SDS later on to be known as the "New Left" when they gained control of the Democrat Party, they also gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Are they traitors ?

How about John Kerry ? He backed stabbed the American soldier while they were still on the battlefields in Southeast Asia. Is he a traitor ?

The enemy's commanding general, Gen. Giap acknowledged all the help North Vietnam got from the American anti war and anti draft protesters on the streets of America that allowed him to violate the Paris peace treaty and invade South Vietnam in 1975 and win his war, are they also traitors ?

Do you know the argument that the loony left used why Jane Fonda and the others who gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War shouldn't be tried for treason ? Their argument was that the Vietnam War wasn't a declared war by Congress. I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not.

 

Hoooelleee good god.

After just about *every post* you've posted here has been proven deadly wrong, you've gone full blown commando whacko.

Seriously, seek redemption.

 

Yguy, when you study history don't do it from the 21st Century perspective, you'll always get it wrong. Put yourself back in the erar you are studying. It helps to know the popular culture at the time, the living conditions,m the food they ate. Was it breakfast, dinner, supper or breakfast, lunch and then dinner ? What kind of music did they listen too ? Where did their loyalties lie, with the federal government, a monarchy, the individual sovereign states, etc. ?How were the laws interpreted during the era you are studying ?

Excerpt:

 

^ Thinks a conservative paper written by a neocon from the Federalist Society trumps everything. lol

 

You're stuck in the progressive's 21st Century of ignorance and being uniformed or misinformed.

A year ago you were probably one of the many misinformed who was calling a battle flag the flag of the Confederacy government.The same people who always referred to a pistol ammunition magazine as a clip.

Your hatred of others who aren't in lock step with one thought isn't surprising, because liberal political correctness is nothing more than totalitarian.

 

I had no idea that Prof. Andrew Kent was a neoconservative.

Can I or should I say we take your word on that Prof. Kent is a neoconservative or is this just more of liberal revisionism ?

I'm not a big fan of neoconservatives and wish they would all return to the Democrat party where they fled from when the radical left "New Left" hijacked that political party during the early 1970's.

 

Does A1S10 prohibit secession? Does any part of the Constitution prohibit secession?

Because if not, then the 10th Ammendment kicks in.

Remember, I do not agree with secession. And I can even explain why it is not legal. But that is beside the point, for your claim to be valid you have to explain it. I am not going to do your homework and research for you.

And remember, it is ultimately only secession if they win and seceede from the country. Otherwise, it is rebellion.

An act that ultimately founded this country, which the founding fathers all believed in.

Even to the degree that some believed that there should be constant rebellions, in order to prevent the government from becoming repressive.

 

Of course so many of the Native tribes have had an active policy of genocide from Columbus on to the 19 Century. Of course the Plains Indians had a clear policy of oppression as witnessed by countless atrocities against settlers and soldiers. If you have any doubts, how about the Battle at the Little Bighorn? The Comanche came out of Rockies several hundred years ago, and with the help of horses (usually stolen from the Spaniards) began a system of ethnic cleansing of all other Native tribes including the Apache, Spanish, Mexican and Texans.

Are you so naive as to think all Amerindian tribes lived in the same territories for last 10,000+ years and never fought each other????

There are no studies, only history.

 

If your contributions here are indicative, about the only way I'll ever get it right in your eyes is not to do it from a commonsensical perspective - particularly WRT the Constitution.

Sure as heck hasn't done you much good.

I'm not here to debate a link. You want me to read something, you're gonna have to give me a reason to believe it's worth reading, and you haven't come close.

Implicitly, yes and yes.

No, because as I explained upthread, no right is cognizable under the Constitution that is not exercised under US jurisdiction, which obviously excludes secession - not to mention that 10A itself reaffirms that certain powers over the states are delegated to the US.

Now that I have, yet again, it's on you to find substantive fault with the explanation.

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

Well then I guess I'm lucky to have gotten it done long before this thread appeared.

Not sure I see the value of the distinction in the present context, as unilateral secession can hardly be achieved except by rebellion.

Sure, under certain conditions which were not met by the slave states.

 

Question well read one, were the "Copperheads" in the North during the Civil War also traitors ?