In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 6 Esse Quam Videri, 1878–1902 The final two decades of David Schenck’s life were by no means quiet or uneventful. It was a period in his life during which he came to realize the limitations of the Southern society he loved and, in his own way, fought to preserve. Schenck reached the zenith of his career on the bench, but then fell short of attaining a loftier position on the state supreme court. He would also devote himself to rewriting the history of the Battle of Guilford Court House, the only major battle fought in the state during the Revolution. In so doing, Schenck sought to rescue his personal reputation and the honor of his beloved North Carolina and her sons who died fighting to secure liberty for posterity. Indeed, his zeal for the honor of the Old North State in the waning years of his life would be similar to the zeal he had expressed for the Confederate cause many years before. From the superior court bench, Schenck’s long battle against federal encroachment on states’ rights continued unabated as this stage of his life opened. Unwilling to cede one inch of ground on the issue of the state courts’ jurisdiction, he frequently clashed with federal judges in several high profile cases. In the case of State vs. Jesse F. Hoskins et al., which involved the power of the U.S. Circuit Court to remove an indictment of federal revenue officers charged with assault and battery from the state courts for trial in federal court, Schenck wrote the leading opinion for the state courts, which later went before the state supreme court. “I arrived at home from my circuit on Saturday the 13th, and was engaged all the following week in the preparation of my ‘opinion on the conflict of jurisdiction’ between the state and federal courts,” he wrote. “I was the first judge to resist the federal court in its claim to remove criminal cases from the state to the circuit courts.”1 For Schenck, donning the robes of a superior court judge was akin to donning a Confederate uniform. In his first four years on the bench he was a tireless and vocal advocate of Southern and states’ rights. And as in the days of the secession crisis, he often spoke out publicly against the federal government ’s wanton excesses and abuses of power. “It seems I have been called, by Divine Providence, to resist Federal usurpation and expose Radical villainy ,” he wrote. “It often discourages me to be always in a warfare with these Esse Quam Videri, 1878–1902 106 corruptions in high places but it is duty and I shall discharge it fearlessly and trust in God to bless me for it.”2 To Schenck, no federal abuse of power was as unsavory as racial equality before the law. On this issue he remained bitter. “The breach between the races widens as the young free negroes grow up and intrude themselves on white society,” he complained as he reflected on the changes that had overcome the South as a result of Radical Reconstruction. Schenck stewed on the issue for years. Chillingly, in 1890 he would write, “nothing prevents the white people of the South from annihilating the negro race but the military power of the United States government.”3 Although by 1877 Radical Reconstruction in North Carolina had ended, many Carpetbaggers and advocates of radical reform still remained in positions of power throughout the state. They supported the federal government in the conflict of jurisdiction that Schenck had become so involved with. The case went before the state supreme court, and Schenck’s opinion was the primary argument for the state courts. In Schenck’s view, the state’s supreme court was infested with Radicals. His antipathy for the high court ran deep. “The Supreme Court of North Carolina is a political Nazareth, a hot bed of Radical hate, and desperation,” he growled.4 Anticipating a ruling against the superior courts, he wrote, “I have but little hope from them except the Chief Justice and shall therefore not be surprised to hear an adverse opinion from them.”5 At the end of July, the state supreme court rendered its decision, overturning Schenck’s argument. “The court, true to its Radical instincts and its political hatred of the rights of the states and its aversion to all decent white folks and respectability generally, has decided in favor of the power claimed,” he wrote...

Share