Friday, May 28, 2010

The Amendments by David Barton


The Klan shot down this white State Senator because he was Republican and was fighting for the rights of blacks in his State. Even republican U.S. Rep. Joseph H. Rainey though Dr. Winsmith was hit seven times in that hail of bullets, he survived the shooting and lived to testify before Congress about the attack made on him by the Klan. In 1868, the Klan in South Carolina issued a push-card about the size of a baseball card. 155 It pictured 63 “Radicals”; they were all Republicans. Of the 63 “Radicals” or Republicans in the South Carolina legislature, 50 were black and 13 white. On the back of the card, all the names of the Republicans were listed; evidently, if the Klan wanted to pay them a night visit – as they had to Senator Winsmith – with the help of this card, they would know exactly for who they were looking.

Although much progress had been made because of the 13th Amendment and the civil rights laws passed in Congress, Democrats in the South still found ways to ignore those laws. Although forced to acknowledge that slaves had become free, they denied former slaves the rights of citizenship in those States, therefore withholding from them the rights accorded to all other citizens in their State. Congress responded with the 14th Amendment a civil rights amendment to the Constitution declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the
State in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that State. KKK card identifying republicans in the South Carolina legislature: 50 blacks and 13 whites when the 14th Amendment came to a vote, 94 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted for the passage of that civil rights Amendment; however, the records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14th Amendment! 157 Three years after the Civil War, and Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans!

Perhaps this lack of support for civil rights is not surprising considering the makeup of the national Democratic Party at that time. A handbill highlighting some of the distinguished notables at the 1868 Democratic National Convention held in New York City on July 4th of that year reveals that Democratic delegates to that Convention included:

Rebel Generals (25), Rebel Colonels (30), Rebel Majors (10), Rebel Captains and other Minor Rebel Officers (20), Rebel Governors (5), Rebel Congressmen (15), and therefore a total of Rebel Members (105). Nearly one-fifth of the members of the Democratic National Convention were leaders who had either militarily fought for or politically led the delegates to the 1868 democratic national convention the 1868 democratic national convention slaveholding nation in the South. The handbill also featured portraits of two prominent Rebel Generals who participated in that Convention.

One was Wade Hampton. Before the war, Hampton had been a Democratic U. S. Senator from South Carolina, but he vacated the Senate to join the new slaveholding nation formed by southern Democrats. In 1876, Hampton ran for the
Democratic governorship of South Carolina; one of his active allies in that election was a group called the “Red Shirts,” 159 which was essentially the Klan dressed in red shirts rather than white hoods. To help win Hampton’s governor’s race, they issued the following guidelines:

Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation, purchase, keeping him away, or as each individual may determine how he may best accomplish it. We must attend every Radical i.e., Republican meeting that we hear of, whether they meet at night or in the daytime. Democrats must go in as large numbers as they can get together – and well-armed. Gen. Wade Hampton how democrats convinced black voters not to vote republican Leading newspapers of the day – such as Harper’s Weekly – included an illustration demonstrating how Democrats controlled votes in those elections. In fact, during a congressional hearing about whether southern blacks voted Democrat, the following exchange occurred:

Q. Were there many colored Democrats there?

A. Very few indeed; some barbers and a few men that worked in towns pretended to be Democrats.

Q. Do you know any colored men who were Democrats from instinct?

A. No sir; only from the instinct of self-preservation.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER By David Barton


David Barton tells us that except for a short period for remodeling, the Senate met in its original chamber (now the Old Supreme Court Chamber) until 1810, when it moved directly upstairs into its second home. Those second quarters, located above the small rotunda with the plaques, are today called the Old Senate Chamber. The Senate remained in records of congress reporting the decision to use the house as a church john quincy adams that chamber from 1810 until 1859, when it moved into the chamber that it currently occupies. (As already noted, a number of Senators who served in the Old Senate Chamber – e.g., Daniel Webster – were strong men of faith.)

Having investigated the three locations in the Capitol where the Senate met, it is interesting to note some of the locations where the Supreme Court met, because the locations of the Senate and the Supreme Court are directly linked. Significantly, the locations in the Capitol in which the Court met during its first century-and-a-half form a potent commentary on the Founders’ views of the power and reach of the Court.

The Founders made remarkably elaborate plans for the city of Washington, D. C. The streets were laid out alphabetically and numerically; and the system was so logical that even today it is easy to find any location in that huge city simply by its address. Our Founders planned for traffic flow; they anticipated growth; and they made farsighted preparations for the President and the Congress, providing buildings and support services for both. Yet, with all their elaborate preparations, they did not provide a separate building for the U. S. Supreme Court. This was not an oversight on their part; the Supreme Court was intended to meet inside the Capitol.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Profession of Divinity by David Barton


From this short, but plain and, I hope, just statement of things, we perceive a principle of connection between all the learned professions; but james wilson at the signing of the constitution james wilson at the signing of the declaration wilson’s law lectures especially between the two last mentioned [the profession of Divinity and the profession of law]. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. 85

David Barton tells us that founding Father and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, a leading figure in the development of American constitutional law, believed – and taught – that all good civil law must embrace and flow from God’s law.

Placed on four pillars around the back of the Old Supreme Court Chamber are four busts – those of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court; John Rutledge, the Court’s second Chief Justice; Oliver Ellsworth, its third Chief Justice; and John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice. another of justice wilson’s lectures on religion and law

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Conveying the Bible by David Barton


John Jay, as the Court’s first Chief Justice, was, along with James Wilson, an original member of the Supreme Court. You may recall that John Jay was a founding vice-president of the American Bible Society. Five years after he helped found that organization, he became its second president upon the death of its original president, Elias Boudinot.

The annual speeches John Jay delivered to the American Bible Society as its president are powerful declarations of his own beliefs the court’s first chief justices: john jay (top left), john rutledge (top right) oliver ellsworth (lower left), and john marshall (lower right) about the efficacy of the Bible. For example, in one of those speeches, Chief Justice John Jay declared:

David Barton tells us that by conveying the Bible to people . . . we certainly do them a most interesting act of kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced. The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve.

The Bible will also [encourage] them with many explicit and consoling assurances of the Divine mercy to our fallen race, and with repeated invitations to accept the offers of pardon and reconciliation. . . . They, therefore, who enlist in His service, have the highest encouragement to fulfil the duties assigned to their respective stations; for most certain it is, that those of His followers who [participate in] His conquests will also participate in the transcendent glories and blessings of His Triumph. 86