The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

The Insurrection Act simply amended the Militia Act in response to to Burr's attempt to unilaterally secede The Louisiana territories and possibly Mexico for his own personal profit.

What? You mean that unilateral secession is illegal?

The change gave the president power to call the army and navy in addition to militia. Lincoln's proclamation called for the raising of militia, but he was also secretly moving the navy, so who knows which he thought applied, if either (he had a way with his actions not matching his words or the laws.)

Both of them applied.

Before you fudge an analogy with the CSA, Burr did not represent the government of any sovereignty (State) and make open declarations of secession on behalf of the people...he, and "combinations" of co-conspirators were trying to secretly pry territories away from the U.S.

None of which changes the plain language of the Act:

whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President of the United States, to enforce, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

The point was (and still is) clear in the text to limit federal/presidential power only to "where lawful" and needed - depending on local/state authorities for the initial response to any insurrections/rebellions, and only deferring to fed help when the respective state response failed.

And the 1795 act made it lawful for the president to call out the mliitia "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act."

If this is the new basis on your argument, you again have to ask at what point did SC, MS, TX, et al. fail to suppress a resurrection and defer to federal assistance?

Sorry, where in the law does it require the state to defer to federal assistance. You provided the link. Did you read what it says? "Whenever the President considers..."

I'm sorry if I've upset your little neo-confederate applecart by pointing out that most of your talking points--arguments I've seen many times on these threads--don't hold up to much scrutiny. Clearly you're getting upset here. Maybe if you had something to do on the weekends you wouldn't be so irate.

There's good 'ol "neo-con" again.

There are historians that argue the current academic climate makes it impossible to discuss issues that view any part of traditional Southern culture or history as positive without incurring this label.

Bravo again, Bubba. You're a wiki stereotype.

You actually had to go look up “neo-confederate” on Wikipedia?

You actually need me to explain how copying and pasting works?

Any progress on when that War of 1812 ceasefire was agreed upon?

The confederate flag is a symbol of treason, a crime of which every soldier who volunteered to fight for the confederacy is guilty. _________________________________

The confederate flag is a symbol of treason
______________________________
Piss off damn yankee, it is a symbol of southern heritage. NS, is that you?