It other words what you are saying is that legal desent under the 1st Amendment is equal to rebellion if it doesn't agree with Presidental policy?
Was Maryland in Rebellion? When did they seceed? Please advise because, I can not find that date in my History book.
This view of Presidental authority is dangerous! If that were the case, under this view of such Presidental authority, what would you say to President Bush exercising simular authority?
Second the President has no such authority without, the request of the Governor of the State in which civil unrest is taking place, or where ther is a breakdown of civil authority. Neither of these conditions were present in any of these actions which Lincoln took.
For example, Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina was a breakdown of civil authority, but Federal Troops could not be "legally" sent in until the local authorities requested it. The same applies to riots where the National Guards assisting the Local law enforcement are not able to control the situation.
The President DOES NOT have the UNLIMITED authority to impose Marchall Law, Nor to subvert the Constitution. The Presidency is NOT a Throne, and the President, under our Constitution, does not to this day have such unilateral Kingly Powers.
This "unlimited authority" concept of federal government is the typical underlaying theme of the errors in the popular interpretation of events which started that war. More authority and responcibilities are given to the States and Individuals under the Constitution than is given to the Federal Government. I personally do not what a Government that is unrestrained and all powerful.