Re: When the Civil War ended ...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by New Kid on the Block on September 12, 1998 at 13:16:36:

In Reply to: When the Civil War ended ... posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 11, 1998 at 22:11:40:

This is correspondence I initiated with a holder of the perpetual martial law doctrine. My questions were as follows:

You stated, "The actions of Johnson were uperceded by the Republican Congress during Reconstruction."

Were they by law, or by fact? As I begin to consider this issue further (at least for the state of Texas) President Johnson's declaration was within his lawful and official capacity as the Commander-in-Chief. He was authorized to declare an end to the rebellion, not Congress [See: 14 Stat 814]. There was no capacity for Congress to take any official position other than the support the Executive. This was declared a state of insurrection, not a declaration of war.
Congress'only response was a declaration of war. (In fact, most of all the acts on the
federal level during this time violated the separation of powers doctrine established by both constitutions.) The states were accepted, and
declared at peace[proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sity-six], under their original constitutions.

Their response was as follows:

I have pondered for several weeks how to best answer your question. Then I ran across the following report of the 43rd Congress, 1st Session, 26 March 1874:

"War was continued in those States until the President's proclamation of August 20, 1866, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater -- 'non flagrante bello se nondum cessante bello' [Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419].

"A state of war does not cease with actual hostilities. 'Military government may legally be continued bello nondum cessante, as well as
flagrante bello'.... It is easier to provoke a civil war than to restore the confidence without which peace returns but by name. Under these
circumstances the reasons whichn justify martial law subsist' [Hare's Constitutional Law, page 938].

"The existence of what is called a 'state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains -- the animus revertendi -- so
long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the
danger is past, and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances.

"If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.

"It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Congress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government' [what a joke!]that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them."

Consequently, we have Thaddeus Stevens' statement:

"The belligerent character of the Southern States was recognized by the United States.... The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien
enemy, the property of their leaders seized and appropriated to the payment of the national debt. This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern States were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto, and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war. Absurd to think of trying the leaders for treason. That would be acting under the Constitution....
"No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union.... But by treating them as an outside, conquered people, they can be refused admission to the Union unless they voluntarily do what we demand."

As you probably already know, flagrant war was once again commenced throughout the North and South by the Roosevelt Administration on 9 March
1933 and is renewed every year in November by a declared "war on drugs," "war on crime," "war on poverty," etc. and is further justified by the
"right wing conspiracy" that Hillary talks so much about (but which is likely a created ruse de guerre of the UNITED STATES -- i.e. the bombing in

Care to engage? Mrs Alexander's Cotton seems to defeat your belief that all war measures ended with the proclamation of peace under Andrew Johnson. Also bear in mind the great debate between Johnson and Congress, which almost cost him the Presidency, Johnson wanted restoration [a Christian doctrine known well to all in that era when almost all citizens went to sunday school] Congress wanted Reconstruction, and that is what they got. They reconstructed new states in which the U.S. Constitution was declare to be supreme to all of the law of the Land. Even those states that weren't involed in the conflict constructed new states for United States citizens such as California and the Northwest Territories [for entities which before never existed for example; "No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution." Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47. also Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 349]. These new states in the 5 military occupied districts were created under martial law [See: House Congressional Report June 13, 1967 pg. 15643.] and continue in existence today. The account of the martial law constitution of Texas provides some interesting and entertaining reading.

New Kid

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]