On the record
But the leaders who, in official position before the war, had solemnly sworn to support the Constitution, were held to be far more guilty than the multitude who followed them.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “But the leaders who, in official position before the war, had solemnly sworn to support the Constitution, were held to…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine argues that leaders who betrayed their oath to the Constitution were considered more culpable than their followers.
Share
More from James Blaine
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war.
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…
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.
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General…
Other voices in this conversation
