The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916 Page: 25
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas v. White
Congressional plans of restoration and reorganization. The Presi-
dent's action in establishing provisional governments was upheld
as being a power properly derived from his authority as com-
mander-in-chief of the army and navy. He had found the State
of Texas deprived of civil government and had supplied it until
the people could reorganize one for themselves.
So long as the war continued, it cannot be denied that he might
institute temporary government within insurgent districts, occu-
pied by the National forces, or take measures, in any State, for
the restoration of State governments faithful to the Union, em-
ploying, however, in such efforts, only such means and agents as
were authorized by constitutional laws.84
Whether he had been in the right in superintending the entire
process of restoration without consultation with the legislative de-
partment, the court did not consider it necessary to state. This
was as far as the Supreme Court would go in support of the Presi-
dent in his controversy with Congress. Thus far, however, the
support was definite and thorough-going, for it was declared that
the organization of the provisional governments was within his
power. But it was stated that he was in error in arrogating to
himself the authority and function of guaranteeing a republican
form of government to the State. In reference to this power, the
The power to carry into effect the clause of guaranty is primarily
a legislative power, and resides in Congress. Under the fourth
article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what
government is the established one in a State. For, as the United
States guarantee to each State a republican form of government,
Congress must necessarily decide what government is established
in the State, before it can determine whether it is republican or
The action of the President, it was alleged, must be considered
as purely temporary and provisional. It was within the consti-
tutional competency of Congress to declare it to be so or to be
final and complete.
As to the acts of Congress, when setting in operation its own
plan of reconstruction, there was nothing in the case which de-
"7 Wallace, 730.
"The words of Taney in the case of Luther v. Borden, 7 Howard, 42.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916, periodical, 1916; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101067/m1/33/: accessed January 22, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.