"This is the relevant paragraph from the 142-year-old article in The North American Review:
"The Constitution declares that itself, the laws of the United States made pursuance of it, and treaties made under its authority, shall be the supreme law of the land, by which the judges of every State shall be bound, anything in the laws or constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a perversion of terms to call the "supreme law of the land" a compact between the States, which any State may rescind at pleasure. It is not itself an agreement, but is the result of an agreement. And in the absence of an express declaration, or reservation, it is an entire subversion of all legal principled to maintain that the subordinate may at pleasure set itself free from the restrictions imposed upon it by the fundamental law constituting the superior, even if the subordinate have in other particulars and uncontrolled authority. The judges of each State being expressly bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States, anything in the constitution or laws of the State to the contrary, how can a State law (or ordinance, which is but another name for law) relieve them from the obligation? And if they are bound, the State and the people are bound also. The judges are expressly named, the more surely to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction and decision."
--The North American Review (Volume 93, Issue 192) July, 1861
Walt
"THE WAR MUST BE PROLONGED" ~Stanton~
On July 26, 1861, Congress, by joint resolution, set forth the principles on which the War between the States was to be fought and the goals that were to be the end of the strife then engulfing the country. The resolution declared that:
. . . the war is not waged in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or the overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Southern] States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired . . . as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.
This resolution, which soon became a mere scrap of paper, was, from the very first, a thorn in the side of the radical element. The Abolitionists, from the haughty Sumner, who thought himself the leader of a holy crusade, to the practical Thad Stevens, who chose a mulatto to preside over his household and who eventually had himself buried in a negro cemetery, took violent exception to this implied recognition of slavery. Other radical politicians contemplated with horror the early return of the seceded states under conditions that would make them again equal to their Northern neighbors. Why was this war being carried on, anyway? If slavery were to be restored, the start of another armed conflict was only a matter of time. The preservation of the Constitution? They cared nothing for the Constitution. What they did care about, and what was really a question of polical life or death to them, was the preservation of their party. The Republicans were a new faction, far from homogeneous, and a minority group at best. In 1860 Lincoln had not received the majority of all the ballots, even disregarding the votes from the Secession states, and could not have been elected against a solid Democratic opposition. If the southern states returned to Congress with their voting strength unimpaired, the end of Republican domination was in sight. This is what had to be prevented, regardless of negro rights and the provisions of the Constitution.
* * *
The war must be prolonged... [Stanton]
Why Was Lincoln Murdered, Otto Eisenshiml, 1937, pp. 309-11
LINCOLN AND REPUBLICAN RADICALS
Stanton's [reconstruction] proposal would have placed Virginia and North Carolina in a single military department under supervision of the War Department, and it seemed to Welles "a plan of subjugation, tending and I think designed to increase alienation and hatred bewteen the different sections of the Union." Lincoln had asked Stanton to change his plan so as to preserve state individuality. It was further proof, if such proof was needed, that the President was incorrigible. Living, he would forever present an almost insurmountable obstacle to Radical plans.
But Fortune smiled on the Radical party. Lincoln was murdered.
"It is usual today, [says George Fort Milton in his Age of Hate], to depict the death of Lincoln as having occasioned an universal outburst of grief throughout the North and particularly amoung the leaders of the Republican party, by whom "the Great Emancipator" has since been made a party god. When a searcher for the truth examines the private records of the time, he can scrace repress a feeling of surprise, for the fact is that the Radical leadership of the Republican party, while not pleased with the sacrifice of Lincoln, the individual, almost rejoiced that Lincoln, the merciful executive, had been removed from the helm of state."
Julian, one of these Radical leaders, boldly stated that the accession of Andrew Johnson to the presidency would prove a blessing to the country. In this sentiment he was not alone. On April 15, only a few hours after Lincoln's death, a caucus of Republican leaders was held, at which the tragedy was described as a gift from Heaven, and it was decided to get rid of Lincolnism. Ben Butler was chosen to be Secretary of State. Unfortunately for that plan, Seward's injuries were not fatal, and his position did not become vacant. Blunt Senator Wade told the new President, "Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the government!" Johnson had been ranting for weeks past that secession was treason, that treason must be made odious, and that all Confederates should be hanged.
From the pulpit, the Radical sentiments poured forth with astounding frankness. "I accept God's action as an indication that Lincoln's work as an instrument of Providence ended here," said the Reverend Martin R. Vincent, in the First Presbyterian church of Troy, New York, "and that the work of retribution belonged to other and doubtless fitter instruments. I will not positively assert that his policy toward traitors was so much too lenient that God replaced him by a man, who, we have good reasons to think, will not err in this direction. Yet I say this may be and it looks like it."
The Reverend Warren E. Cudsworth, in Boston, also expressed his satisfaction, "His [Lincoln's] death under God will do as much for the cause he had at heart as did his life. We know that already several of the leading supporters of his administration had taken issue with him on Reconstruction in the rebel states."
The Reverend Mr. Crane was convinced that the assassination was the work of Providence. "Abraham Lincoln's work is done," he stated solemnly. "From the fourteenth of this April his work was done. From that time God had no further use for him ..."
* * *
It is remarkable how closely the wishes of the Radicals and the ways of Providence chanced to meet on "the fourteenth of this April." ... An attempt had also been made on the life of Seward, the only other prominent Republican who was lenient and conciliatory.
* * *
The Reverend S. D. Brown of Troy, without intending to do so, came perhaps closer than anyone to summing up the case against the Radicals. "God has a purpose in permitting this great evil..." he declared. "It is a singular fact that the two most favorable to leniency to the rebels, Lincoln and Seward, have been stricken. Other members of the cabinet were embraced in the fiendish plan, but as to them, it failed" Singular indeed.
Only one man ventured to utter publicly the suspicion that the Radicals had been instrumental in causing Lincoln's death. That man was Andrew Johnson. In a speech from the steps of the White House, on February 22, 1866, he announced that there had been
innuendos in high places ... that the "presidential obstacle" must be got out of the way, when possibly the intention was to institute assassination. Are those who want to destroy our institutions and change the character of the Government not satisfied with the blood that has been shed? Are they not satisfied with one martyr? Does not the blood of Lincoln appease the vengeance and wrath of the opponents of this Government? . . . Have they not honor and courage enough to effect the removal of the presidential obstacle otherwise than through the hands of the assassin?
Why Was Lincoln Murdered?, Otto Eisenshiml, 1937, Little Brown & Company, pp 368-71
Keep that feedback coming Wlat. It is only by the volume and pitch of your squeal that I can accurately judge how well I'm doing. I can see I did real good yesterday. :-))
You cite the North American Review. If you can find something in print in any obscure location it must be true. That being the case, here is the information for a reproduction from The Shreveport Journal you might like to purchase. Surely The Shreveport Journal is as authoritative as the North American Review.
http://www.bolerium.com/cgi-bin/bol48/67544.html
Bolerium Books
2141 Mission Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94110
[civil rights] What Lincoln said about integration reprinted by popular request. Shreveport Journal, Shreveport. no date, the 60s, Single leaf on lightweight stock, 8.5 x 6.5 inches, reproduces the editorial page masthead with six lines specific to this handbill, then the brief "editorial" --about 300 words. Edgeworn, a little scorched, by age or heat uncertain.
The Shreveport Journal is pleased to reprint--by popular request--its recent editorial.. the demand for extra copies has been so great that our supply of Journals for that date has been exhausted.. Lincoln quoted as "not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes .. physical difference .. no greater calamity than assimilation..
Price: $10.00 Cat.No: 67544
Bandwidth Bob provides another lithium-free comment.
B: The War Between The States, Albert T. Bledsoe
Mr. Story
"The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed, have been, drawn from considering the constitution a compact between States, are that it operates as a mere treaty or convention between them, and has an obligatory force no longer than suits its pleasure or its consent continues...."
Thus the great controversy is narrowed down to the single question -- Is the Constitution a compact between the States? If so, then the right of secession is conceded, even by the great jurist, as well as by "the great expounder" of the North. (B:14)
"The name 'United States of America', is an unfortunate one, and has, doubtless, led many minds into error. For it may be said, if the States do not form a confederacy, why are they called 'United States?'" (B:25)
The American Question, by William H. Story
James Madison
"a compact to which the States are parties." (B:67)
"This Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties." (B:67)
James Wilson
the only object ainted at by the Convention of 1787 was to enable the States "to confederate anew on better principles"; and, if no more could be effected, he would agree to "a partial union of the states, with a door left open for the accession of the rest."
Alexander Hamilton
If the new Constitution shouldbe adopted, says he, the Union would "still be, in fact and theory, as association of States, or a confederacy."
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
Patrick Henry
If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated government of the people of the United States."
Daniel Webster
"The North finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the south and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where it did not expect to find itself when they agree to the compact of the Constitution." (B:87)
"When the constitution was framed, its framers, and the people who adopted it, came to a clear, express, unquestionable stipulation and compact." (B:87)
"These States passed acts defeating the law of Congress, as far as it was in their power to defeat it. Those of them to whom I refer, not all, but several, nullified the law of 1793. They said, in effect, 'we will not execute it. No runaway slave shall be restored.' Thus the law became a dead letter. But here was the Constitution and compact still binding; here was the stipulation, as solemn as words cold form it, and which every member of Congress, every officer of the general government, every officer of the State government, from governors down to constables, is sworn to support." (B:87)
"I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which repsects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the south would be no longer bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides." (B:88)
the Constitution "is founded on consent or agreement, or on compact" (B:33)
Gouverneur Morris
"He came here to form a compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed that all would enter into such a compact. If they would not, he would be ready to join with any States that would. but as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the southern States will never agree to." (B:28-9)
Mr. Gerry
"If nine out of thirteen [States] can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter." (B:29)
Thomas Jefferson
"The States entered into a compact which is called the constitution of the United States." (B:31)
"that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itselt, since that would have made its discretion, not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; BUT THAT, AS IN ALL CASES OF COMPACT AMONG POWERS HAVING NO COMMON JUDGE, EACH PARTY HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO JUDGE FOR ITSELF, AS WELL OF INFRACTIONS AS THE MODE AND MEASURE OF REDRESS." (B:187)
John Jay
Mr. Chief Justice Jay, of the supreme Court of the Union, in the case of Chisholm vs. the State of Georgia, expressly declares that "the Constitution of the United States is a compact." (B:30)
John Quincy Adams
"Our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts, deriving all their authority from the free consent of the parties to them." (B:30)