Historical parallels between Trump ballot case, RI's Dorr Rebellion | Opinion

Erik Chaput and Russell DeSimone are the co-creators of the Dorr Rebellion Project website.

The study of our nation’s past — from just a few years ago to as far back as the Reconstruction era — continues to shape the contours of American politics. For teachers tasked with engaging the next generation of voters, there are interesting historical parallels from a recent Supreme Court case to one over a century and a half ago stemming from the 1842 Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island.

In December 2023, the Colorado high court ruled that because former President Donald Trump had, in their understanding, directly aided an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, he was ineligible to run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump appealed. In its ruling on March 4 in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court put the former president back on the ballot.

Despite the urging of a who’s who list of American historians who wrote amicus curiae briefs outlining the original understanding of Section 3, the court charted a path to preserve the democratic order in a presidential election year. They did not explore connections between the insurrection on Jan. 6 and the Civil War.

More: Maine just barred Trump from the ballot. Will RI's secretary of state follow suit?

A study of Rhode Island’s mini (and bloodless) civil war in 1842 will also help students explore complicated questions relating to the Supreme Court and democracy. For Providence attorney Thomas W. Dorr, the state’s failure to usher in a modern constitution, along with its neglect of voting reform measures, justified forceful action.

In mid-May 1842, Dorr, believing himself to be the duly elected governor, took drastic steps to take control, including an attempt to seize the state arsenal by force of arms. Unlike the insurrection on Jan. 6, however, Dorr and his allies caused no damage to state property nor was anyone killed − though a great deal of that was due to dumb luck.

In June 1844, Dorr was tried and convicted of treason. The Supreme Court eventually weighed in, though not on Dorr’s appeal, but rather on a trespass case stemming from an overzealous militia during the short-lived rebellion.

Luther v. Borden (1849) raised significant issues, ones that Dorr helped to manage early on from his jail cell. These included the possibility of whether or not the Supreme Court could decide between the legality of Dorr’s government and the sitting government that put down his brief insurrection. If the justices retroactively ruled that Dorr was right and his opponents wrong, then the state, which finally adopted a new constitution in 1843, would have been thrown into chaos.

The Luther case was argued in 1848, but the court waited until after the presidential election to hand down its ruling. Dorr wanted the Supreme Court to use the guarantee of the republican government clause in Article IV, Section 4 to justify his actions. Instead, the court, while acknowledging the “unfortunate political differences” in the state, said the guarantee was established by the sitting government sending representatives to Congress and the actions of President John Tyler at the time.

More: 'A dangerous time in America': Political scholar looks at national, world politics

The long-term impact of the ruling was that the guarantee clause became wholly nonjusticiable, something akin to what the court said a few weeks ago about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In Luther, the court, while certainly acknowledging the state’s antiquated political culture, did not get at the myriad of ways reform efforts had been squashed in Rhode Island.

On March 4, the Supreme Court refused to discuss the elephant in the room of whether Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and whether or not a former president played a role. The ruling hinged on whether or not Section 3 required Congress to act first to disqualify a federal candidate before a state could act. The recent past was not discussed.

The issue of the people’s sovereignty continues to arise in moments of intense disagreement. Key participants will continue to frame their words and deeds within the ideology of democracy, exploiting ambiguities, and making the role of the teacher so vital as they set out to help students navigate this turbulent political landscape.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: A study of RI’s mini civil war in 1842 will help students explore complicated questions relating to the Supreme Court and democracy.