Prize Cases

For more information on prize cases, visit Britannica.com.

2 black (67 U.S.) 635 (1863), argued 10–13, 16–20, 23–25 Feb. 1863, decided 10 Mar. 1863 by vote of 5 to 4; Grier for the Court, Nelson, joined by Catron, Clifford, and Taney, in dissent. On 19 April 1861 President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Confederate ports, and later that month he extended the blockade to the recently seceded states of Virginia and North Carolina. On 13 July Congress authorized Lincoln to declare that a state of insurrection existed, and on 6 August Congress retroactively ratified all of Lincoln's previous military actions.

The Prize Cases involved libels against four different ships and their cargoes seized before 13 July. The Amy Warwick contained coffee and was en route to Richmond. The Court upheld its seizure as “that of enemies' property” (p. 675). The Hiawatha was a British ship caught in Richmond when the Civil War began. The ship's captain was on notice that all neutral ships had to leave Richmond within fifteen days after the blockade began. Because of the failure to obtain a tow, the ship was unable to leave port until a few days after the blockade became effective, although its cargo was loaded within the fifteen‐day period. The Court affirmed the condemnation of both the ship and its cargo. The Brilliante was a Mexican ship that entered New Orleans more than a month after the blockade was established. The ship was captured after leaving New Orleans, and the Court upheld the condemnation. The Crenshaw, owned by citizens of Richmond, was captured taking tobacco to England. This ship presented a straightforward question of enemy property. The Court upheld the libel against both the ship and its cargo.

While involving many different technical issues, the cases all turned on one key question: did the president have the power to impose the blockade without congressional authorization? Lincoln argued that a state of insurrection existed after the firing on Fort Sumter and that he was empowered to take unilateral action against this situation. In supporting Lincoln on this issue, the Supreme Court upheld his theory of the Civil War as an insurrection against the United States government that could be suppressed according to the rules of war. In this way the United States was able to fight the war as if it were an international war, without actually having to recognize the de jure existence of the Confederate government.

In the Prize Cases Justice Robert Grier held that “a blockade de facto existed” after Lincoln's proclamations and that as “Executive Chief of the Government and Commander‐in‐Chief of the Army and Navy,” Lincoln “was the proper person to make such notifications” (p. 666). Grier argued that a war could exist even if one party did not recognize the sovereignty of another. He noted that, as “civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the court is bound to notice and to know” (p. 667). Here the Court took notice of the war and Lincoln's response to it.

In dissent Justice Samuel Nelson argued that “no civil war existed between this Government and the State in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress” on 13 July and that the president did not have the power, under the Constitution, to either declare war “or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war” (p. 698). Nelson believed that only Congress possessed such powers and thus that the seizures under the blockade were illegal.

In the Prize Cases the Court narrowly approved Lincoln's theory of the Civil War as a domestic insurrection with the attributes of an international war. For domestic constitutional purposes the Court affirmed the power of the president to act as if he were merely suppressing an insurrection, while for purposes of international relations, the Court held out to the world that the South was a belligerent and could be legally blockaded. The theory of the war accepted in this case implied that other actions by the president, including the Emancipation Proclamation and the suspension of habeas corpus, were also constitutionally permissible, especially when supported by subsequent congressional approval.

See also Presidential Emergency Powers.

Bibliography

• Stewart L. Bernath, Squall across the Atlantic: American Civil War Prize Cases and Diplomacy (1970)

— Paul Finkelman

Prize Cases
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 10th, 1863 Decided March 10th, 1863
Full case name	The Prize Cases
Citations	{{{USVol}}} U.S. {{{USPage}}} ([[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume {{{USVol}}}|more]]) 22 BL. (67 U.S.) 635 (1863)
Holding
The President did have the authority to order a blockade and impound ships, even without a formal declaration of war
Court membership
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Associate Justices James M. Wayne · John Catron Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne Samuel F. Miller · David Davis
Case opinions
Majority	Grier, joined by Wayne, Swayne, Miller, Davis
Dissent	Nelson, joined by Clifford, Carton, Taney
Laws applied
Article II of the United States Constitution, Law of the Sea

Prize Cases (1863) – 67 U.S. 635^[1] – was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1862 during the American Civil War. The Supreme Court's decision declared constitutional the blockade of the Southern ports ordered by President Abraham Lincoln. The opinion in the case was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier.

Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Conclusion 4 References 5 See also 6 External links

Background

Facing the secession of several states from the Union and the possibility of open hostilities, Abraham Lincoln did not ask Congress to declare war on the Confederate States of America as he believed this would be tantamount to recognizing the Confederacy as a nation. Instead, Lincoln instituted a naval blockade which had interesting legal ramifications because nations do not blockade their own ports; rather they close them. By ordering a blockade, Lincoln essentially declared the Confederacy to be belligerents instead of insurrectionists.

The Confederate States were mostly agrarian, and almost all of their machined and manufactured goods were imported. At the beginning of the war there was only one significant steel mill and manufactory in the South, the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia. Moreover, the southern economy depended on the export of cotton, tobacco and other crops. The blockade of the South resulted in the capture of dozens of American and foreign ships, both those attempting to run the highly efficient blockade and smuggle goods and munitions to the South as well as those attempting to smuggle exports from the South.

Decision

The question before the court dealt with the seized ships. If there was no formal war, then capturing ships and impounding them is piracy. The Court looked to international law, and concluded that "it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States." The Court further stated that the President, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, had the authority to proclaim a blockade as a method of waging war. The Court noted that Congress, in 1861, had adopted a law ratifying and approving the President's proclamation as well as other actions taken to prosecute the war, but did not declare whether such Congressional approval was necessary to legitimate the blockade.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court found the actions of President Lincoln constitutional.

References

• http://supreme.justia.com/us/67/635/case.html

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 67

External links

• ^ 67 U.S. 635 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
• Oyez Official Supreme Court media, summary of The Prize Cases, and link to written opinion.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)