David Barton U.S. History

Ignoring Original Intent by David Barton

2010-08-24T20:42:00.000-07:00

Yet, amazingly, most of the contemporary rulings currently proceeding from that Amendment involve neither “Congress” nor the “making of a law.” It is truly remarkable that the Court now considers a rabbi to be the equivalent of “Congress,” and that offering an invocation or benediction is now the equivalent of “making a law.” The free exercise of religion is no longer the inalienable right recognized by our Founding Fathers.

In fact, the First Amendment’s guarantee for the free exercise of religion is now often ruled by the Court as the unconstitutional establishment of religion prohibited by that same Amendment. Therefore, because of the current Court’s absurd interpretation, public free exercise of religion is now an unconstitutional establishment of religion, thus causing the First Amendment to violate itself.

Recall that when school prayer was struck down in Engel, the Court acknowledged that it had failed to cite a single precedent. From that point, the use of precedents by the Court has been haphazard and unpredictable. Quite simply, the Court makes its decisions almost solely on the basis of its own current prejudices rather than with any regard to original intent. In fact, when invoking authority for its decisions, it almost exclusively cites only its own recent case law.

To illustrate this, simply count the post 1947 citations the Court uses in its cases. Why use that year? Recall that it was the 1947 Everson case in which the Court began its radical reconstruction of the intent of the First Amendment, introducing not only its religion-hostile separation rhetoric but also extending its jurisdiction over religious issues into States and local communities rather than just the federal government.

Interestingly, despite the Court’s haphazard use of historical precedents, it can invoke them with purpose if so inclined. For example, when the Court upheld the constitutionality of Congressional Chaplains in Marsh v. Chambers, 1983, it relied heavily upon history and original intent. However, such cases are infrequent.

The Creator and Preserver by David Barton

2010-08-19T20:22:00.000-07:00

Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?” George Washington

When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education. Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution

The first point of justice consists in piety; nothing certainly being so great a debt upon us as to render to the Creator and Preserver those acknowledgments which are due to Him for our being and the hourly protection He affords us. Samuel Adams

All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. Noah Webster

The Court had declared unconstitutional the very embodiment of a system which the Founders had embraced as the basis of civilized society. Justice Rehnquist summarized the illogical position taken by the Court:

The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin. The words of Justice Jackson, concurring in McCollum v. Board of Education merit quotation at length: “I think it remains to be demonstrated whether it is possible, even if desirable, to comply with such demands as plaintiff’s completely to isolate and cast out of secular education all that some people may reasonably regard as religious instruction . The fact is that, for good or for ill, nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences. One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.”

The Constitution and Bill of Rights by David Barton

2010-08-12T00:11:00.000-07:00

What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their “firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.” Aside from the fact that the Court had affronted the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment by striking down a voluntary prayer, in a comment the following year, the Court itself noted another irregularity of its decision:

Finally, in Engel v. Vitale, only last year, these principles were so universally recognized that the Court, without the citation of a single case reaffirmed them. The Court had failed to cite even a single precedent to justify its prohibition of New York’s voluntary prayers a significant departure from a bedrock rule of jurisprudence. Why did it fail to cite precedent cases? There were none which would support its decision. For 170 years following the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no Court had ever struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location.

While the Court invoked no judicial precedent to sustain its decision, it did employ some strategic psychological rhetoric. Recall the Court’s comment that: these principles were so universally recognized. Lacking precedent, the Court simply alleged a widespread public support; that is, since “everybody” knew school prayer was wrong, the Court needed cite no precedent. However, the so-called “universally recognized” principles were actually foreign to most, and many observers commented on the Court’s new direction. For example, the World Book Encyclopedia 1963 Yearbook observed:

The significance of the 1962 decision regarding this school prayer was enormous, for the whole thorny problem of religion in public education was thus inevitably raised. According to this source, prior to the Engel case, the issue of separating prayer from education had not been “raised.” Legal authorities also noted: The Court has broken new ground in a number of fields. Few Supreme Court decisions of recent years have created greater furor than Engel v. Vitale.

The American Bible Society by David Barton

2010-08-06T23:45:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ has in the clearest manner inculcated those duties which are productive of the highest moral felicity and consistent with all the innocent enjoyments, to which we are impelled by the dictates of nature. Religion, when fairly considered in its genuine simplicity and uncorrupted state, is the source of endless rapture and delight. Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text

Pray that God would graciously pour out His Spirit upon us and make the blessed Gospel in His hand effectual to a thorough reformation and general revival of the holy and peaceful religion of Jesus Christ. Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut

I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Savior to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for “there is no salvation in any other” Acts 4:12 .

If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

There are numerous additional examples, and to apply the term “deist” to this group is a completely erroneous characterization. Further testimony of the strong religious convictions of so many Founding Fathers is evidenced through their leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous religious societies or through serving in active ministry. Notice these representative examples:

John Quincy Adams: Vice President of the American Bible Society; member of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

Abraham Baldwin Signer of the Constitution: Chaplain in the American Revolution for two years.

Joel Barlow Diplomat under Washington and Adams: Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years.

Joseph Bloomfield Governor of New Jersey: Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress: Founder and first President of the American Bible Society; President of the New Jersey Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; member of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The Nature of Religion by David Barton

2010-07-29T22:23:00.000-07:00

The John Adams’ quote is taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, in which Adams illustrated the intolerance often manifested between Christians in their denominational disputes. Adams recounted a conversation between two ministers he had known: Seventy years ago. Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular humorous and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a gentleman.

The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster Joseph Cleverly had been more than commonly fanatical and declared “if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions;” the parson Lemuel Bryant coolly replied, “Cleverly! You would be the best man in the world if you had no religion.” Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams declared to Jefferson:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell. In reality, Adams’ position on religion was exactly the opposite of what is put forth by many groups.

Adams believed that it would be “fanatical” to desire a world without religion, for such a world would be “hell.” Jefferson wrote back and declared that he agreed. Amazingly, while the assertion concerning Adams was completely inaccurate, the words attributed to Washington are totally false “The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion”.

Congress of the States by David Barton

2010-07-22T19:22:00.000-07:00

On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. On September 12, 1782, the full Congress approved that Bible which soon began rolling off the presses. Printed in the front of that Bible the first English-language Bible ever printed in America was the Congressional endorsement: Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States. Of this event, one early historian observed: Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the States assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!

A year after this Bible, and almost two years after the British had laid down their arms at Yorktown, there still was no treaty, and thus no official guarantee that the hostilities would not resume. Yet, since there had been no further fighting, and the prospect of a lasting peace appeared to be growing, George Washington began to anticipate his return to private life.

In contemplation of this, on June 3, 1783, he explained: Before I retire from public life, I shall with the greatest freedom give my sentiments to the States on several political subjects. Consequently, five days later on June 8, Washington issued a circular letter to the Governors of all the States in which he told them: I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His holy protection that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

The Laws of God by David Barton

2010-07-15T01:07:00.000-07:00

They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a church choir leader, musician, noted poet and literary figure, similarly discounted any notion of anarchy or rebellion in his 1777 work “A Political Catechism”:

Q. What is war?

A. The curse of mankind; the mother of famine and pestilence; the source of complicated miseries; and the undistinguishing destroyer of the human species.

Q. How is war divided?

A. Into offensive and defensive.

Q. What is the general object of an offensive war?

A. For the most part, it is undertaken to gratify the ambition of a prince, who wishes to subject to his arbitrary will a people whom God created free, and to gain an uncontrolled dominion over their rights and property.

Q. What is defensive war?

A. It is to take up arms in opposition to the invasions of usurped power and bravely suffer present hardships and encounter present dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom, to generations yet unborn.

Q. Is even defensive war justifiable in a religious view?

A. The foundation of war is laid in the wickedness of mankind. God has given man wit to contrive, power to execute, and freedom of will to direct his conduct. It cannot be but that some, from a depravity of will, will abuse these privileges and exert these powers to the injury of others: and the oppressed would have no safety nor redress but by exerting the same powers in their defense: and it is our duty to set a proper value upon and defend to the utmost our just rights and the blessings of life: otherwise a few miscreants unprincipled individuals would tyrannize over the rest of mankind, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that defensive is not only justifiable but an indispensable duty.

Q. Is it upon these principles that the people of America are resisting the arms of Great Britain, and opposing force with force?

A. Strictly so. And may Heaven prosper their virtuous undertaking! Quite simply, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy. In fact, throughout the course of the struggle, the conflict was often described by the Americans as a civil war rather than a revolution; and a chronological survey of the acts before, during, and after America’s separation from Great Britain provides numerous examples illustrating the Americans’ consistent reliance on spiritual principles. For example, in the early 1770s when English oppression had been steadily mounting and injustices increasing, there had been no reliable source from which the Colonists could receive either accurate news reports or patriotic inspiration. To meet this need, Samuel Adams of Massachusetts and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia formed the Committees of Correspondence an early pony-express style news service. The original Committee in Boston had a threefold goal: 1 to delineate the rights the Colonists had as men, as Christians, and as subjects of the crown, 2 to detail how these rights had been violated, and 3 to publicize throughout the Colonies the first two items.

Political Equality by David Barton

2010-07-09T00:32:00.000-07:00

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.

The Ratification of the Constitution by David Barton

2010-07-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

For 150 years following the ratification of the Constitution, States were considered the highest authority on any dispute involving the issues within the Bill of Rights. Only under unusual circumstances would a case involving those freedoms reach the federal courts. In fact, the Holy Trinity Court noted that federal courts rarely ruled on controversies involving religion. Therefore, since federal courts were less of an authority on these issues, they frequently cited State Supreme Court decisions as their authority as did the Court in Holy Trinity.

Only since the Court’s federalization of the States in the mid-twentieth century have State Supreme Courts been viewed as subordinate to the federal courts. It will be helpful to recall this when reviewing the following cases. Updegraph v. the Commonwealth, 1824 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This was the first case cited in Holy Trinity, and the facts of the case were described in the grand jury’s indictment: Abner Updegraph not having the fear of God before his eyes contriving and intending to scandalize and bring into disrepute and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth in the presence and hearing of several persons did unlawfully, wickedly and pre-meditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say :

“That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.” To the great dishonor of Almighty God and to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion. Updegraph, indicted under the State law against blasphemy, was found guilty by the jury; that verdict was appealed.

Since the central question revolved around the issue of blasphemy, the court needed to establish a legal definition of that word. It therefore turned to the writings of the foremost legal authority of the day: William Blackstone. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, introduced in 1766, became the law book of the Founding Fathers. 8 In fact, so strong was its influence in America that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran. It was therefore logical that the court should turn to this source to establish the legal definition of “blasphemy”:

Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious insulting reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. By the legal definition, Updegraph had clearly violated the law. His attorney, however, argued that his conviction should be overturned for two reasons: Updegraph was a member of a debating association which convened weekly, and what he said had been uttered in the course of an argument on a religious question; that both the State and federal Constitution protected freedom of speech, and that if any State law against blasphemy did exist, the federal Constitution had done away with it; Christianity was no longer part of the law. Undoubtedly, defense arguments would differ little today.

Declaration of Belief by David Barton

2010-06-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

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 Effect of the Coupling by David Barton

2010-06-18T00:59:00.000-07:00

Today, the Court divides the religious clauses of the First Amendment into what it terms “The Establishment Clause” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and “The Free Exercise Clause” “nor prohibiting the free-exercise thereof ”. It is very obvious that no portion of the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in either part of the First Amendment nor in any other part of the Constitution. It is not surprising, therefore, that the recent reliance by the Court on this non constitutional phrase has prompted complaints by many constitutional jurists.

For example, in Baer v. Kolmorgen, Judge Elbert Gallagher complained: Much has been written in recent years to “a wall of separation between Church and State”. It has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart similarly observed: I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

And Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, after describing this phrase as a “misleading metaphor,” then noted: But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The “wall of separation between Church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.Regrettably, the public’s current understanding actually, misunderstanding of the religious provisos of the First Amendment has been shaped primarily by a phrase which does not even appear in the Constitution a phrase almost totally unknown in constitutional jurisprudence for well over a century-and-a-half before the 1947 Everson case.

Yet, while all must truthfully concede that the separation metaphor is not actually found in the Constitution, many today nevertheless argue that the phrase as applied today accurately captures the intent of the Framers that the concept of a complete separation (i.e., an enforced secularization of the public square) was practiced by them during the Founding Era. Is this assertion correct?

Southern Redemption by David Barton

2010-06-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

They did not oppose emancipation. They were not “Ku-Klux” . . . They did not scourge, and hang, and shoot, and murder men for opinion’s sake. They did not organize the Louisiana white league or the South Carolina rifle clubs. They did not drench the South with the blood of inoffensive colored men. . . . The piece concluded with a simple question: Can the Democratic Party and all Democrats say as much?

A further indication that the Democrats were well known for their bloody atrocities against blacks is seen in an illustration from Harpers’ Weekly showing the major elements and influences of the Democratic Party. The illustration showed the various banners under which Democrats gathered, and those banners included the Stars and Bars carried by Confederate soldiers; the pro-slavery banner; the Ku Klux Klan banner; the New York Rioters banner; and finally the Democrats’ banner of repudiation. These were the various movements led by Democrats, and Americans in that day knew exactly what Democrats stood for.

By the 1880s, a movement called “Southern Redemption” had begun in earnest. Southern Redemption was a political movement to “redeem” the south from the Reconstruction Acts and civil rights laws passed by Republicans – laws and acts hat southern Democrats believed threatened their version of a southern society. So firmly were southern Democrats opposed to the constitutional amendments and civil rights laws imposed on them during Reconstruction that one southern newspaper declared:

It is safe to say that had the southern people known in 1865 what was in store for them, they would not have laid down their arms – and should not have laid them down.

Southern Redemption was the effort of southern Democrats to restore the South to the racial condition of white supremacy that had existed before the Civil War. The best way for the newly restored Democratic legislatures to “redeem” their State from what had occurred to them following the Civil War was to deprive black Americans of their political rights by the passage of State laws that restricted, removed, or even blatantly violated their civil rights 308 as well as through the prompt repeal of State reconstruction laws that had suppressed Klan violence. Rep. John Roy Lynch – who not only had helped pass the original federal civil rights laws but had also, witnessed their subsequent violation at the State level throughout the democrats congratulating themselves on their victory over African Americans period of Southern Redemption – accurately noted: The opposition to civil rights in the South . . . is confined almost exclusively to States under Democratic control.

The Removal of Federal Troops by David Barton

2010-06-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

In 1884, John Roy Lynch became the first black American to preside over a national political convention – the Republican National Convention in Chicago. 296 While Lynch was the first black American to preside over a national political convention, he was not the last: U. S. Senator Edward Brooke presided over the 1968 Republican National Convention, and Rep. J. C. Watts presided over the 2000 Republican National Convention. 298 While three black Americans have presided over National Conventions for Republicans, to date Democrats have never had a black American preside over any of their National Democratic Conventions.

Following the removal of federal troops from the South after the agreement of 1876, federal troops could no longer protect African American rep. john r. lynch was the first African American to preside over a national political convention – the 1884 republican national convention in Chicago voting. Republicans therefore sought different means to preserve the rights of black Americans in the South. For example, they posted handbills reminding southern Democrats first of the federal laws protecting black voting rights and then warning of huge fines for violations.

The presidential election of that year was between Republican James A. Garfield and Northern Democrat Winfield Scott Hancock. Hancock had been a successful Union General during the Civil War, but after the War he was reassigned because of his leniency toward unreconstructed Democrats. It is because Hancock was a Democrat, a handbill not. The reasons given in that piece would today be considered as inflammatory language; at that time, however, the declarations were nothing more than reminders – that is, the facts recorded in that piece were already widely known by the voters of that day:

Why I Will not Vote the Democratic Ticket. I am opposed to the Democratic Party, and I will tell you why. Every State that seceded from the United States was a Democratic State. . . . Every man that shot Union soldiers was a Democrat. . . . Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat.

The man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat. Every man that sympathized with the assassin – every man glad that the noblest President ever elected was assassinated – was a Democrat. . . .

Every man that wept over the corpse of slavery was a Democrat. Every man that cursed Lincoln because he issued the Proclamation of Emancipation – the grandest paper since the Declaration of Independence – every one of them was a Democrat. . . .

Soldiers! Every scar you have got on your heroic bodies was given you by a Democrat. Every scar, every arm that is lacking, every limb that is gone, every scar is a souvenir of a Democrat.

That handbill then contrasted the Republicans with the Democrats: 1880 voter handbill The Republicans have done some noble things – things that will be remembered as long as there is history. But there are some things they did not do. They did not use an army to force slavery into Kansas. . . . They were not “Knights of the Golden Circle.”

The Amendments by David Barton

2010-05-28T00:17:00.000-07:00

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.

THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER By David Barton

2010-05-19T23:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Profession of Divinity by David Barton

2010-05-12T00:40:00.000-07:00

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

Conveying the Bible by David Barton

2010-05-05T00:49:00.000-07:00

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