How were opponents of Hiram Rhodes Revels trying to use the Fourteenth Amendment to contest his election?

United States Senate in 187o and argue that Dred Scott had ever been

authoritative. "I never expected to hear read in the Senate of the

United States, or in any court of justice where authority was looked

for, the Dred Scott decision," said Senator James Nye of Nevada.40

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was less civil. He pronounced himself "nauseated," disdaining entirely the thought of going "into that

recondite inquiry as to the political status of a black man under the

Dred Scott decision."41 Not to be outdone, Senator Charles Sumner of

Massachusetts declared that Dred Scott had been "[b]orn a putrid

corpse," and described it as "a stench in the nostrils ... to be remembered only as a warning and a shame. '42

In a mirror image of the Democratic belief that the Fourteenth

Amendment had not validly overruled Dred Scott, many Republicans believed that Dred Scott had no legal force even without the Fourteenth Amendment. One can distinguish two forms of that belief. The

first, which might follow from Senator Sumner's description of Dred

Scott as "born a putrid corpse," is that Dred Scott was so wrong as to

have been invalid ab initio. The other, which is more complex conceptually but yields the same result, is that events following Dred Scott - the election of President Lincoln, Southern secession, the Civil War,

emancipation, and perhaps the postwar constitutional amendments - amounted to a radical break with the past, one that made it senseless

to treat certain legal authorities from the old regime as if they had continuing meaning. On this view, the Republican position might not be

that Revels had been a citizen for nine chronological years before 1870,

or at least not in a sense that could be confirmed by asking whether a

court in i86i would have deemed him a citizen. Instead, the position would be that in 1870, it was impermissible to betray fundamental

principles of the new order by giving legal effect to the fact that other

principles - evil principles - had been applied at an earlier time.

Whatever people might have done in 1857 or i86i, this perspective

would hold, it would violate the norms of 187o to give continuing force

to Dred Scott.

Although not always clearly distinguishing between those two positions, several Republicans argued that the Civil War itself demonstrated Dred Scott's invalidity. "The comment made upon that great wrongful judicial decision is to be seen in the dreadful war through

which we have passed," said Senator Howard.43 Senator Frederick

Sawyer, a transplanted Bostonian representing South Carolina, spoke of the war as "the great court of errors" that had reversed the Taney

Explanation:

swe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "

- declaration of independence

  according to this passage from the declaration of independence, who gives government the power to exist?

a) the king

b) the people

c) their creator

d) their governmenthook

abraham lincoln