On the record
The general phrasing was to deceive people outside, and, perhaps, to lull the consciences of some objectors at home, but it made no difference whatever in the execution of the statutes.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “The general phrasing was to deceive people outside, and, perhaps, to lull the consciences of some objectors at home, but…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine criticizes the misleading language of laws that did not change their discriminatory enforcement.
Share
More from James Blaine
Under such circumstances, to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.
The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme.
But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their…
Other voices in this conversation
