Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-11-23
2IlTlANn HERALD,
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER II, 1865,
,,age Redf,eid's Letter 10 the Hon.
\ sslo,non Foot ON Reorganization
nd Negro Suffrage.

and Negro suffrage. "
mssrs. Editors Rutlaid HereH.-You
ujll oblige me, and think will render
public service by publishing the fol
Iowing letter from Judge Redneld. 1t
/, both important and interesting as ex-
prssing the opinions of an eminent
urist, upon question of vital national
interest and of engrossing public con
.deration, at the present time.
Very respectfully yours,
SOLOMON FooT.
gRutland, Nov, s, 1865.
BosToN, Sept. 30,
Hon. Solomon Foot, U. s. Senator, Vermont
NJ DEAR SIR IL received your kind letter of
IL he 9TH inst, in which you are pleased 10
IA EXPRESS desire TO have my suggestions, at
oar last interview, restated more In detail.
III Il is probably from the fact that have at
tempted TO look at the questions alluded to-
y in your letter, as reorganization and Ne
cro suffrage" from an exclusively legal
pont of view, more than from any other
81 cause, that my deductions present in any
est, And | suppose their plausibilty, if
such they possess, is mainly attributable, TO
that logical sequence, which connects them
with their anteCedentS, and which have at
stempted to pres eryc. But | am not insensi-
Bic 10 the fact, that many logical, and plaus-
# iJle theories, in civil jurisprudence, when
attempted to hc reduced 10 practice, are
ouud, as imPmcuCable, as those OF the
most absurd and inCOnSeQucntial character
m "a ha{sp had he
press an interest in nay opcculations, or
opinions, AS q mere LAWYER, the only office
81 Iaspire 10 have, | will give you mere
N outline of them in the hriefcst form
7. The first great question then, is, what
81 has been the result Of the war; What has
/. settled? How does II leave the States?
/. What questions has the war settled
Il War may fairly hC cOusidened, as an action,
n Vending in the only tribunal having full
81 Jurisdiction Of questions between nations,
n or fragments of nations; the tribunal of
81 force Ultima ytujO rCgUHi The results of
"a the war then may be, not inaptly, Consid-
# cred under the figure of Il judgment, in an
action in court Of justice; for such in fact
is war more than anything else,
2. The judgment, as in other cases, con
Cludes all the issues involved in the action.
The most important Of these issues is that,
in regard to the paramount sovereignty of
the nation, and the right to vindicate that
Il sovereignty by force of arms against all
aggressOrs, as we'll from within as from
without We think then, that the National
q Government may fairly claim, against those
engaged in the rebellion, that the result has
established forever their right to the para
mount sovereignty, and to Vndieate the
same by force. And it must follow as a re-
suit of this that the war has conclusively de-
termined, that secession is rebellion and trea-
son, and that the National Government NAV
put il down by force of arms. and punish
the offenders, in any, and all, legal modes
1t will be seen that this is making the ma
tional sovereignty not only supreme, but
also the Judge of the extent and nature of
j Its own powers. This is but the indispensable
consequence of the paramount national SOW
ereignty. This was the great and main queS-
d ton involved in the war, and which must
be regarded as forever put at rest by the
result of the war, or the Judgment in the
action.
3. But, Ii will be asked how does this
leave the states? UnQuestiouablv, in a sub
ordinate position. But thar is precisely the
position in which they are placed, by the
constitution. The very fact of giving the
national tribunals the supreme jurisdiction,
in all questions affecting the relations of the
states to the national government, and a
supervisory power over the state courts,
upon all those questions, by inevitable con-
sequence, made the nation supreme, and
the states subordinate Every lawyer will
understand this, and that is the precise rea-
son, in my judgment, why we might expect
TO find the good lawyers in the eouHtry,so eX-
tremely sOlicitouS TO maintain the just bal
ance, between the powers and functions OF
the states and those of the nation; and so
Jealous OF encroachments by the latter upon
the just prerogatives of the former En-
croachment, in such a relation, is the nat
ural course of events. II is the history OF
all unequal relations, that the superior be
comes more and more powerful, day by day
while the subordinate, year by year, and
day by day, becomes more and more de
pendent. And it makes no difference
whether the claim, on the part of the supe
rlOr, in any given instance, is lust or un
Just; it sure in the end to prevail, if per
sistently pursued. This seems to me good
reason, why the nation should exercise the
utmost CircumSpeCtiOn, not TO claim more
OF the states than its own Indispensable ne
cessites demand.
L. How then shall the states be treated
after the surrender of the rebellion! This
will depend mainly upon our views OF the
effect OF the war upon the states, as pOliti
cal persons, or corporate organizations. Il
they no longer exist, for any purpose, thai
will be an end of all question. We have
nothing left but to parcel out the territory
into new states, at the discretion of the ma
tonal government and there is no occasion
to inquire into the U,0duS QpGandi, Tha
ceases to be a question of right, and be
comes one of eXpediency merely. But We
think very few will claim all this, at the
present day.
3, We think all good lawyers, at least
if laboring under no special prejudice, mus
admit that the states, where the rebellion
has prevailed, do exist, for many purposes
if not for all. the same as before their at
tempted ordinances of secession. Tit
states, as corporate organizations, may
fairly enough be judged of by the analogue
growing out of the law, as applied to othe
corporations How then, upon this theory
has the rebellion affected the states, as or
ganic corporate existences? 1t cannot fairl.
De SAID, we think, that the states have beel
guilty OF rebellion, rs states. 1t has to-
often been decided, and is too universal
conceded, that no action of the state as
corporate organization, can bind any bu
those, who affirmatively endorse it, beyon
the legitimate authority Of those who act o
behalf of the state, to be now brought i
question. 1t is universal rule, in regar
to all corporate action that tho maiorit