SLEEPLESS VIGILANCE - THE "LETTERS OF MARQUE" CLAUSE

14 August 1999 | Worth Baldwin

[philman_36]

The letters of marque and reprise clause of the US Constitution was superceded by a treaty banning such in the 1860s I believe.
I believe you're talking out of your nether regions and will continue to believe such until you, at some point in time, substantiate your "belief" with evidence.

[skepsel]

Sigh...pearls before swine I guess.

The 1856 Declaration of Paris was signed by diplomats from Austria, France and Great Britain. US participation was initially rejected by the Buchanan administration. The Lincoln administration adhered to the Declaration in an attempt to limit potential Confederate naval power.

This adherence to the Declaration of Paris laid the legal basis for the Alabama claims settlement since Britain, a party to the Declaration, permitted the construction and purchase of a warship by a party it did not recognize as an independant nation-state, only a co-belligerant.

Among other things the declaration abolished prize courts. This prevented the condemnation and sale of captured vessels and cargoes and the division of the proceeds between crews, financial backers and national governments. This removed the profit incentive for private parties to finance warships. The prospect of being hanged for piracy provided further disincentive for those that might think to officer or crew such vessels.

I said believe because I didn't have the exact date, the treaty in question does indeed exist. Ever heard of a nation, ANY nation flagging privateers since the mid/early 19th century? No? Not even one? Didn't think so.

I further believe you have your head stuck in your nether regions. I suggest you grab your ears and pull firmly, I believe this may help free the object in question, of course if you aren't going to use it you may as well leave it there.

Here endeth the lesson.

[philman_36]

Sigh...pearls before swine I guess.
Sigh...another one of those "everyone knows that..." things that has to be shown not to be after all.
The United States was one of the main nations not to ratify the Declaration.
I can give you more cites if you need them.

Here endeth the lesson.
I'd say class is still in session.

[philman_36]

From Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

Privateers in Charleston 1793-1796
By the early nineteenth century, however, privateering finally came to be recognized for the incorrigible institution it was, and in 1856 it was swept away by the Treaty of Paris, to which, it is interesting to note, the United States and Spain did not subscribe.

[skepsel]

Don't believe I said "ratify" did I? No, I said "adhered", as does the Wikipedia article you cited (hint: you have to actually read and comprehend what you cite and what others post). Now run along, I don't have enough hairs left to be splitting them with you.

[philman_36]

Now run along, I don't have enough hairs left to be splitting them with you.
Hair splitting?! You and your "adhered"...
You keep failing to mention that said adherence was only for specific, short time frames.
Because the difference between a privateer and a pirate was a subtle (often invisible) one, in 1856 the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private parties was banned for signatories of the Declaration of Paris. The United States was not a signatory to that Declaration and is not bound by it. During the 1861-65 American Civil War and the 1898 Spanish-American War, however, the United States issued statements that it would abide by the principles of the Declaration of Paris for the duration of the hostilities. (The Confederate States of America did issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal during the Civil War.)
Seems like the US was trying to play well with others...for a short time.
Anythng else?

[philman_36]

BTW, merely "adhering" to a treaty for a short time doesn't mean it supercedes the Constutitution like you first claimed...
The letters of marque and reprise clause of the US Constitution was superceded by a treaty banning such in the 1860s I believe.

[philman_36]

Afterthought...
Don't believe I said "ratify" did I?
For a treaty to "supercede" the Constitution it would have to be signed and ratified, wouldn't it?

[philman_36]

Your silence is deafening.

[philman_36]

10 hours and no response. Am I to take that as an admission of error on your part and you were, after all, incorrect in your belief?
Here endeth the lesson.
I'd like to end this class, but that means you need to have some class.