The Republic of Republics; or, American Federal Liberty is a comprehensive work authored by Bernard Janin Sage, published in 1881. Writing under the pseudonym P.C. Centz, Sage presents a detailed analysis of the United States’ federal structure, focusing on the principles of states’ rights, secession, and constitutional interpretation.
Context and Purpose:
In the aftermath of the Civil War, debates surrounding the nature of the Union and the rights of individual states intensified. Sage’s work contributes to this discourse by advocating for a decentralized federal system, emphasizing the sovereignty of states within the Union. He critically examines the expansion of federal authority during and after the war, arguing for a return to the original constitutional framework that, in his view, prioritized state autonomy.
Key Themes:
States’ Rights and Sovereignty: Sage delves into the concept of state sovereignty, asserting that the Union is a coalition of independent states that have voluntarily united. He contends that each state retains inherent rights that the federal government should not encroach upon.
Secession: A significant portion of the book addresses the contentious issue of secession. Sage argues that, based on his interpretation of the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, states possess the legal right to secede from the Union. This perspective challenges the prevailing post-war view that secession is unconstitutional.
Constitutional Interpretation: Sage emphasizes a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution, advocating for a literal and originalist interpretation. He critiques what he perceives as the federal government’s overreach and the judiciary’s role in expanding federal powers beyond those explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Structure and Content:
The book spans 606 pages, organized into chapters that systematically explore various aspects of federalism, constitutional law, and historical events pertinent to the author’s arguments. Sage incorporates legal analyses, historical narratives, and interpretations of foundational documents to support his viewpoints. The work also includes diagrams to illustrate complex concepts and an index for reference.
Reception and Legacy:
While The Republic of Republics did not achieve widespread acclaim upon its release, it has been recognized by scholars as a culturally significant work that contributes to the understanding of American political thought in the late 19th century. The book offers insight into the perspectives of those who advocated for states’ rights and provides a counterpoint to more centralized interpretations of federal power.
For contemporary readers and researchers, the full text is accessible through the Library of Congress, allowing for an in-depth exploration of Sage’s arguments and the historical context in which they were made.
In summary, Bernard Janin Sage’s The Republic of Republics; or, American Federal Liberty presents a thorough examination of federalism, states’ rights, and constitutional interpretation from a post-Civil War perspective. It serves as a valuable resource for those interested in the historical debates over the balance of power between state and federal governments in the United States.
The Trial That Never Took Place
Jefferson Davis’ post-war legal situation was a complex and revealing episode in American history. After the Confederacy’s defeat, Davis was captured in May 1865 and imprisoned at Fort Monroe, Virginia, for two years. He was indicted for treason, and some Northern leaders and Radical Republicans wanted him to be executed as a traitor to set an example.
However, Davis’ trial never took place because the federal government faced a major legal problem: prosecuting him for treason would require proving that secession was illegal. This was a risky proposition since there was no clear constitutional ruling on whether states had the right to secede before the Civil War. If the case had gone to trial, Davis’ defense could have argued that secession was a legitimate constitutional action, which might have led to an embarrassing legal precedent for the federal government.
Ultimately, the prosecution stalled for years, and in 1867, Davis was released on bail, which had been posted by prominent Northerners, including abolitionist Horace Greeley. By 1869, the U.S. government quietly dropped the charges, likely to avoid a court ruling that could undermine federal authority over the former Confederate states. Davis, on the other hand, actually wanted to stand trial because he believed it would give him the opportunity to legally justify the Confederacy’s actions and vindicate the cause of Southern independence.
This episode underscores the complexity of Reconstruction politics. While the North had won militarily, there were still legal and constitutional uncertainties regarding the nature of the Union, the legitimacy of secession, and the extent of federal power. The decision to release Davis without trial reflected the government’s reluctance to risk a court ruling that might have weakened the post-war order.
Convicting Jefferson Davis would powerfully affirm the northern interpretation of the Constitution and the authority of the federal government. It highlights the significance of such a conviction in solidifying the legal and factual supremacy of national authority.
But “Acquitted on the merits of the case” means being found not guilty based on the evidence and legal arguments presented during the trial, which would affirm the actions taken by the Confederacy to prove they had legal, ethical, and moral grounds to divorce themselves of the corrupted Federal government as it was overstepping the enumerated powers and limited boundaries and scope of the Orginal Intent of the Founders and Framers of the 1787 united States Constitution.
This would throw everything into a tailspin. The North won the war by might, but losing in court would do untold damage to the war and aftermath and would turn everything upside down. How far would they have to go back to right the wrongs done by corrupt politicians and their unconstitutional ways and direction?
