Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
My error.
"The Supreme Court decision in question is Luther v. Borden, from 1849, resolving a dispute that started in 1841.
In 1841, Rhode Island was still using its colonial charter as its system of government, with only slight modifications to reflect our defeat of the British. The charter restricted suffrage very severely, and thus was somewhat unpopular. Led by a man named Dorr, a new state constitution was written and approved by various mass meetings in the state, but without any sanction of the state government. Rhode Island claimed this amounted to an insurrection, and used the state militia to suppress the movement. Borden was a state militia officer who arrested Luther, a Dorr adherent, who sued for trespass.
The case involved, at its heart, which of two competing state governments was legitimate -- the charter government, which had commanded the militia to arrest Luther, or the new constitution government, which had not. Thus the Court was asked to rule on which of two state governments was legitimate, based on Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
By a vote of 8-1, with Chief Justice Roger Taney writing the majority decision, the Court ruled that Congress alone had the authority to do this, that it was a "political question," and therefore not something for the Court to decide.
Congress exercised the same authority in 1861 when it recognized the Pierpont government as the legitimate government of Virginia. Once that was done, the process of partition was entirely according to Hoyle. The inclusion of certain counties into West Virginia can be argued, and the *fairness* or justice of the decision to recognize the Pierpont government can be argued, but it was a perfectly legal step, founded on Court precedent."
Jim Epperson
[end]
Walt
You mean while the police at the door were refusing him entry?
Nothing made Lincoln speak in a loud voice so that all could hear: "Here is my friend Douglass. Douglass, there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more."
Walt
Most controversial. Good grief. President Lincoln -never- suggested that anyone be forced out of the country.
What he suggested is that black soldiers be given the vote.
Walt
Shortly after this meeting, President Lincoln gave up on the idea of colonization and resolved to promulgate an emancipation proclamation. Not long after that, he began preparing the way for full rights for blacks, as these letters show:
Private
General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________
Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon Soc of War
Executive Mansion
Washington
July 21, 1863
My Dear Sir:
I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.
Yours truly
--------------------------------------
Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constitution include voting rights for blacks. A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.
"
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Lincoln's sense of fairness made him seek to extend the blessings of citizenship to everyone who served under the flag.
His great political skill made him realize that blacks --were--not-- leaving -- he played that card and no one was biting, black or white. That being the case, he knew he had to prepare for the future, and that future involved full rights for blacks.
Walt
What he suggested is that black soldiers be given the vote.
New York Tribune:
“Washington. Thursday, [August] 14, 1862. This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had [been] for a long time his inclination, to favor that cause. . . .”
Clearly, what Lincoln said to the committee of Blacks who attended was the most controversial thing ever said by a President of the U.S. Lincoln suggested that Blacks would be happier if they were not subjugated under White rule. In a lengthy speech, he proposed that those Blacks who so desired should colonize other lands, apart from that of Whites.
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.
Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.
Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.
Not corroborated. Butler has no witnesses.
This quote, from Butler's book written 20 years after the events does not square with what both men are known to have said during the war.
Walt
4/11/65
Well, you said it was Dorr v. Rhode Island. You said it was from 1863.
How does one read Luther v. Borden and then call it Dorr v. Rhode Island from 1863?
Oh silly me, assuming somebody actually read the decision before preaching about it.
U.S. Supreme Court
LUTHER v. BORDEN, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
48 U.S. 1 (How.)
MARTIN LUTHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LUTHER M. BORDEN ET AL. DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.
RACHEL LUTHER, COMPLAINANT,
v.
LUTHER M. BORDEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
January Term, 1849
No, I knew it was from the 1840's. But I really dropped the ball on the citation.
Any way, old Taney said in Luther that it was for the Congress to decide which government of a state was legitimate.
None of the so-called seceded state governments had any existence in law.
Walt
REVISIONISTS of the leftist/statist/fascist sort don't even agree WHAT happened, much less why. what they do is LIE about uncomfortable facts.
once again, (SIGH!) all traditional historians were either neutral or PRO-dixie, untilm the rise of the FALLACY of revisionist historiography.
free dixie,sw
but then that is the nature of a turncoat/scalawag.
free dixie,sw
he also made a FORTUNE off selling slaves, freemen & black CSA POWs INTO slavery, until the middle of 1863. and another fortune off of LOOTING/PLUNDERING the private property of civilians, while a serving yankee officer.
fine fellow, don't you think???
free dixie,sw
he was no better or worse than wee willie klintoon.
the two of them are PRECISELY the same sort: say anything & do anything, so long as it gets you ahead.
free dixie,sw
WP doesn't understand even 1/2 of the drivel he posts;the other 1/2 that he posts is self-serving,hatefilled,arrogant, ignorant rantings & LIES of a scalawag & turncoat to his state and his native south.
free dixie,sw
So how can you complain about Atlanta and all those bazillion relatives of yours when you propose the same tactics be used by the south?
[Wlat] No, I knew it was from the 1840's. But I really dropped the ball on the citation.
[Walt 1554] The judicial power of the United States rests with the Supreme Court. --Every-- Justice agreed in 1863 that the Militia Act gave the power to the president to suprress rebellion.
[Walt 1554] This is from Dorr v. Rhode Island:
"[Art. IV, Sec. 4] of the Constitution of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
Gee, I like that selective quote, Walt. Let's return it to its full splendor, glory and context. Let's include the sentence which immediately precedes the quote. I like it that way even better.
This is from Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) (as opposed to the non-existent Dorr v. Rhode Island)
8th. Why a revolution to change the form of a State government can never be resorted to within the limits of the United States Constitution, while a State remains in the Union.
The United States Constitution, Art. 4, Sect. 4, provides that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.