Chief Justice Roberts and American Civil War History

[David Lockmiller]

Headline: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Throw Out Race-Based College Admissions

The court’s conservative majority was wary of plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that take account of race to foster educational diversity.

New York Times
By Adam Liptak
Oct. 31, 2022

Mr. Waxman, a lawyer for Harvard, said that many factors contributed to whether students were admitted.

“Race for some highly qualified applicants can be the determinative factor,” he said, “just as being an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.”

Chief Justice Roberts seemed taken aback. “Yeah,” he said. “We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players. We did fight a Civil War to eliminate racial discrimination, and that’s why it’s a matter of considerable concern.”

A couple of lessons in actual American history appears to be badly needed by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, to wit:

President Abraham Lincoln's Address to the 166th Ohio Regiment, August 22, 1864:

(Please note that this speech was made on the day before President Lincoln wrote the "blind memorandum" on August 23, 1864.)

SOLDIERS--I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the services you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged, I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country.

I almost always feel inclined, when I say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for the day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field, and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life with all its desirable human aspirations--it is for this that the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthrights--not only for one, but for two or three years, if necessary. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.

These following President Lincoln remarks were recorded in the diary of Judge Joseph T. Mills and were based on a conversation he and others had with the President four days prior to the issuance of President Lincoln’s “blind memorandum” on August 23, 1864.

“There have been men who have proposed to me to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson & Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South. I should be damned in time & in eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends & enemies, come what will. My enemies say I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. It is & will be carried on so long as I am President for the sole purpose of restoring the Union. But no human power can subdue this rebellion without using the Emancipation lever as I have done. Freedom has given us the control of 200,000 able bodied men, born & raised on southern soil. It will give us more yet. Just so much it has sub[t]racted from the strength of our enemies, & instead of alienating the south from us, there are evidences of a fraternal feeling growing up between our own & rebel soldiers. My enemies condemn my emancipation policy. Let them prove by the history of this war, that we can restore the Union without it.”

[Editorial note: It is not likely that "enemies" is the word that President Lincoln would use.]

[David Lockmiller]

In the article, Adam Liptik of the New York Times quoted arguments made to the "pre-determined" Supreme Court Justices on this constitutional issue:

“If you’re Black,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.”

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, argued in support of the universities in both cases. “When students of all races and backgrounds come to college and live together and learn together, they become better colleagues, better citizens and better leaders,” she said.

She said that kind of educational environment is particularly vital to the military and that other institutions, including the Supreme Court, still had work to do.

In the two weeks of arguments that began Monday, she said, 27 lawyers are scheduled to argue. “Two are women,” she said, “even though women today are 50 percent or more of law school graduates. And I think it would be reasonable for a woman to look at that and wonder. Is that a path that’s open to me, to be a Supreme Court advocate?”