Protests against turmoil and tyranny Burroughs v. Peyton – Virginia, 1864 (57 Va. 470); Gatlin v. Walton – North Carolina, 1864 (60 N.C. 325)
“The power of coercing the citizen to render military service, is indeed a transcendent power, in the hands of any government; but so far from being inconsistent with liberty, it is essential to its preservation. The danger that the power may be abused, cannot render it proper to withhold it; for it is necessary to the national life.” – Justice __, in Peyton [I]f the courts assume the government may act on the principle, … that ‘necessity knows no law,’ … [w]e may put aside the books and indulge the hope, that when peace again smiles upon our country, law will resume its sway. Inter arma, silent leges [in time of war, law is silent].” - Chief Justice Richmond Pearson (dissenting), in GatlinResistance to emancipation in the loyal states
“I favor and advocate the policy of immediate emancipation in Maryland … because … slavery was the principal cause of this wicked rebellion … because it has been and is now, a support and material aid in carrying on the war … because it is inconsistent with the prosperity and true interests of Maryland, and not adapted to the development of her agricultural and mineral resources … because the institution of slavery has been already destroyed by the rebellion … and … because there will never be any permanent peace between the North and the South, so long as slavery exists as a disturbing element.” – William Purnell, Maryland constitutional convention, June 24, 1864 “[T]his General Assembly regards said proposed [13th Amendment, abolishing slavery] as violative of the reserved rights of the several States, contrary to the principle upon which the government was framed, and believes … it will form an insuperable barrier to the restoration of the seceded States to the Federal Union; [t]herefore … [we] declare [our] unqualified disapproval of said proposed amendment.” - Delaware Legislature, February 6, 1865
Oaths and amnesties Anderson v. Baker – Maryland, 1865 (23 Md. 531); State v. Blalock – North Carolina, 1867 (61 N.C. 242)
“[I]f a restriction of the right of suffrage be deemed necessary … under the circumstances in which the public interests are placed, there can be no valid objection. … How far those of [Maryland’s] people who united in this effort to destroy the Union and assisted in bring in the war, in all its horrors, within her borders, and those of them who aided and abetted the rebellion, … was a matter for the judgment and determination of [the 1864 constitutional convention].” – Justice Daniel Weisel, in Anderson “Everyone has something unpleasant to remember, and many have wrongs to revenge. The details, not to say the … denunciation of parties, the hazard of costs and damages, and the infliction of punishments, would not only keep alive these evils, but would cost them to spread into a pestilence. While so many have injuries to revenge, quite as many have errors to regret; and it will be a great public good if the past can be forgiven and forgotten.” – Chief Justice Richmond Pearson, in Blalock | Cartoon showing slave escaping to Union lines (1861) - courtesy Library of Congress “The assumption that the President of the United States can, by proclamation, abolish the relation of master and slave, and deprive the former of property, amounting under its intended operation, to thousands of millions of dollars, is too monstrous to be honestly entertained by a mind unbiased by prejudice or fanaticism.” – Delaware Legislature (1863)
|
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 3. OLD SOUTH LEGAL HISTORY > 3.4 The Old South: Civil War and Reconstruction (1861-1877) >