Political Equality by David Barton

Lindenmuller v. The People, 1860 Supreme Court of New York this court ruled that while Blue Laws could be considered a civil prerogative of the State to provide a day of rest for all people, it further explained that even if they were adjudged to be a specific legislation of Christianity, that this would be permissible since Christianity was part of the common law: It would be strange that a people Christian in doctrine and worship, many of whom or whose forefathers had sought these shores for the privilege of worshipping God in simplicity and purity of faith, and who regarded religion as the basis of their civil liberty and the foundation of their rights, should, in their zeal to secure to all the freedom of conscience which they valued so highly, solemnly repudiate and put beyond the pale of the law the religion which was dear to them as life and dethrone the God who they openly and avowedly professed to believe had been their protector and guide as a people.

The court further explained that maintaining an official respect for Christianity did not infringe upon the free exercise of religion for others; instead, it provided an umbrella of protection: Religious tolerance is entirely consistent with a recognized religion. Christianity may be conceded to be established religion to the qualified extent mentioned, while perfect civil and political equality with freedom of conscience and religious preference is secured to individuals of every other creed and profession and every man is left free to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, or not to worship him at all, as he pleases.

Compulsory worship of God in any form is prohibited, and every man’s opinion on matters of religion, as in other matters, is beyond the reach of the law. No man can be compelled to perform any act as a duty to God; but this liberty of conscience in matters of faith and practice is entirely consistent with the existence, in fact, of the Christian religion. All agreed that the Christian religion was engrafted upon the law and entitled to protection as the basis of our morals and the strength of our government.

Shover v. State, 1850 Supreme Court of Arkansas This court accepted the fact that the establishment of Sunday laws was within the legitimate legislative power of the State, regardless of whether such laws were religious in nature. However, it did not hesitate to expound upon the important relationship between Christianity and the law: The Christian religion is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law and as such, all of the institutions growing out of it, or, in any way connected with it, in case they shall not be found to interfere with the rights of conscience, are entitled to the most profound respect and can rightfully claim the protection of the law-making power of the State.

Declaration of Belief by David Barton

No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. Supreme Court Justice James Iredell nominated to the Court by President Washington similarly explained: But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. Article VI simply reaffirmed the Founders’ belief that any provisos on religion should remain beyond federal jurisdiction. The Court’s initial abrogation of the original purpose of the Constitution’s religious test clause occurred in Torcaso v. Watkins 44 (1961) the Court’s first ever Article VI ruling. In that case, the Court used this federal constitutional provision to strike down Maryland’s 200 year-old State constitutional requirement that a candidate must declare a belief in God to hold office.

This utilization of Article VI obviously resulted in the breaking of new legal ground. As legal authorities observed: Not until 1961 was this “declaration of belief in God” invalidated. The Torcaso ruling reflected two major mistakes by the Court: one in jurisdiction and one in interpretation. The jurisdiction error was that the Article VI prohibition against religious tests applied only to the federal and not to the State governments. The interpretation error was that the Founding Fathers did not consider a requirement to believe in God to be a religious test.

As an example, consider the provisions of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution a document created with the help of Constitution signer William Blount 46: Article VIII, Section II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. Article XI, Section IV. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. Article VIII first requires a belief in God to hold office; then Article XI prohibits a religious test. Clearly, then, requiring a belief in God was not a religious test in their view. In fact, the Founders believed that any oath or affirmation including that of elected officials to uphold the Constitution presupposed a belief in God.

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.