The Limits of Sovereignty: Property Confiscation in the Union and the Confederacy during the Civil War

Front Cover
University of Chicago Press, Sep 15, 2008 - Law - 200 pages

Americans take for granted that government does not have the right to permanently seize private property without just compensation. Yet for much of American history, such a view constituted the weaker side of an ongoing argument about government sovereignty and individual rights. What brought about this drastic shift in legal and political thought?

Daniel W. Hamilton locates that change in the crucible of the Civil War. In the early days of the war, Congress passed the First and Second Confiscation Acts, authorizing the Union to seize private property in the rebellious states of the Confederacy, and the Confederate Congress responded with the broader Sequestration Act. The competing acts fueled a fierce, sustained debate among legislators and lawyers about the principles underlying alternative ideas of private property and state power, a debate which by 1870 was increasingly dominated by today’s view of more limited government power.

Through its exploration of this little-studied consequence of the debates over confiscation during the Civil War, The Limits of Sovereignty will be essential to an understanding of the place of private property in American law and legal history.

From inside the book

Contents

Introduction
1
Legislative Property Confiscation before the Civil War
14
Radical Property Confiscation in the ThirtySeventh Congress
20
The Conservative Assault on Confiscation
41
The Moderate Coup
57
The Confederate Sequestration Act
82
The Ordeal of Sequestration
111
Civil War Confiscation in the Reconstruction Supreme Court
140
The Limits of Sovereignty
169
Notes
173
Index
217
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 21 - The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.
Page 34 - States shall, under any pretense whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person or surrender up any such person to the claimant on pain of being dismissed from the service.
Page 74 - America;" nor shall any punishment or proceedings under said act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life.
Page 32 - That war gives to the sovereign full right to take the persons and confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found, is conceded. The mitigations of this rigid rule, which the humane and wise policy of modern times has introduced into practice, will more or less affect the exercise of this right, but cannot impair the right itself.
Page 190 - In considering the policy to be adopted for suppressing the insurrection I have been anxious and careful that the inevitable conflict for this purpose shall not degenerate into a violent and remorseless revolutionary struggle.
Page 45 - To the legislature all legislative power is granted ; but the question whether the act of transferring the property of an individual to the public be in the nature of the legislative power is well worthy of serious reflection.
Page 46 - That government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of .property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.
Page 74 - That the enforcement of these sections would do no injustice to the persons embraced within them, is clear. That those who make a causeless war should be compelled to pay the cost of it, is too obviously just to be called in question. To give governmental protection to the property of persons who have abandoned it, and gone on a crusade to overthrow the same government, is absurd, if considered in the mere light of justice.

About the author (2008)

Daniel W. Hamilton is assistant professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Bibliographic information