Property was lost largely for two reasons: financial ruin due to the failed outcome
of the war, and for those former enemy combatants whose pre war holdings were
large, retribution was the main cause. The Union army in the name of General Butler
confiscated both money and property of Creoles and others now termed as
former "enemy combatants".

"We went to New Orleans first, as Father wished to find out what he had left in the bank.
A friend of Father's, Monsieur Gaudet, who was the teller at the old Citizen's Bank, had written
after Father's name, "Emile Locoul— gone to Europe." In doing so, Monsieur Gaudet had saved
all the money Father left in the bank. It was only 2,000 dollars which the General did not confiscate
as he had from so many others who went to war on the southern side."
1863, diarist Laura Locoul Gore

Civil War Confiscation Acts

Both the Union and Confederate Congresses enacted sweeping legislation designed to seize
the private property of "enemy" citizens on a massive scale.

•1861 August — United States Congress passes the First Confiscation Act authorizing the
government to seize property of those participating in the Rebellion.

• 1861 30 August — Confederate Congress retaliated by passing legislation,
The Sequestration Act which authorized the permanent seizure of the real and personal property
of "alien enemies" within the Confederate States of America. This act affected those individuals
who remained loyal to the union, such as those in St. Tammany Parish.

•1862 — The US Congress passes legislation known as the Second Confiscation Act which is
broader than the First Act passed by the United States Congress. It allowed for the
seizure of all property of anyone who recognized and or supported the legitimacy
of the Confederacy. Confiscation during this conflict was different than it had been practiced
in the aftermath of the American Revolution 80 years prior.

•After the end of the conflict, as the victors, the United States Congress nullified all
the laws of the former Confederacy. Thus the prior confiscation of millions in property
and goods was as though it had never happened in the legal sense; it was all absorbed into
the newly reconstituted United States. Union policies of Confiscation defied logic; it was
an agonizing, intractable ideological impasse. It defied Legislative consensus, and was largely
ignored on the Federal level from President Lincoln's cabinet on down. The language of
the Acts was largely confusing and even contradictory, which made its enforcement extremely
difficult. However although Confiscation was not politically viable, it remained within the court
system for about 50 years as a part of American property law.

• The Federal courts continued to examine the questions implicit with the Act: was the confiscation
of property for "disloyalty" a legitimate function of the Congress? Did the Constitution address the seizure
of property in acts of rebellion? Did a Presidential pardon mandate return of already seized property?
Who held title to such properties? How could it be sold? In the 1870 US Supreme court case of Forrest French,
the Supreme court ruled that the government could only hold a lifetime interest in the Confiscated property.
Thus heirs could assert their claim to previously confiscated lands. Litigation over issues related to
Confiscation endured a lengthy time span, through the remainder of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Freedman's Act of 1865

This Act provided for the reuse of lands "abandoned" by their owners or subject to Confiscation in former
Confederate territory. Lands set aside were for "reallocation" to newly freed slaves. It was a provision
vigorously protested against, and in the end, it was effectively squelched by all parties involved, including
the Freedmen themselves. At its inception, abandoned property was seized summarily by the United States
government without the passing of a title of ownership. Prior owners with title had two years to address the
courts to reclaim their lands, and prove loyalty to the Union. The United States Congress approved these
measures under the Abandoned and Captured Property Act of 1863.

In the Case of Presidential pardons

Presidential pardons also applied quite differently to those whose land had been abandoned or seized.
The Second Confiscation Act of the United States of America states, "it shall be the duty of the President
to cause the seizure of all estate, property, money, stocks, credits and effects." Lincoln was uneasy with the Acts.
He feared they would weaken and undermine his administration's efforts to gain the support and loyalty of the
Planters, and other loyal, Southern whites.

In the Louisiana territory, Union General Benjamin Butler carried out the most aggressive policy of seizure against
property owners. After the capture of New Orleans in 1862, Butler used the acts to seize and sell estates, most
particularly those of the Planters and was reviled for it in Louisiana, among other egregious acts undertaken during
his time as an administrator in New Orleans 1862-63.

Lincoln later replaced him with the more moderate Nathaniel Banks as administrator in New Orleans.
During the administration of President Johnson, Confiscation was tightly curtailed. In the summer of 1865
Johnson already began to issue personal Presidential pardons that restored property rights to many.
Ultimately it was the opinion of his Administration that peace time confiscation was illegal. In June 1866
the practice was halted. By Christmas 1868, the Lame duck President, Johnson, granted general amnesty
to those former enemy combatants. This Christmas declaration brought on a flood of litigation which
persisted on into the next century.

The 1870's case of John Slidell, owner of significant lands in and around New Orleans brought nationwide attention.
Public opinion as reported in Harper's Weekly, swung in favor of upholding a prior ruling for confiscation as
Slidell was a prominent New Orleans citizen and an active former Confederate. The 1873 opinion of
United States Supreme Court Justice, Strong, ultimately saved his property from confiscation. President Johnson
sought to ally himself with the planter class and was liberal in granting personal pardons to those holding in
excess of $20,000 in personal or real property. The President was fundamentally against negro suffrage under
those circumstances. He did not view the Freedman's Act as a positive measure to aid the newly freed slaves.
Eventually President Johnson granted more than 7,000 pardons to individuals, thereby restoring their property.

Into the 1880's, the issue of confiscation remained alive in the courts. Its aftermath fostered the advancement of liberal
property rights. Heirs of originally confiscated property brought suits to the US Court of Claims. Once the original "offender"
had died, heirs pressed claims for the return of their family lands in the form of a rightful inheritance.