By BOB BIRD
Most amateur history buffs ignore what happened after the misnamed “American Civil War”. Churchill said, “War is rattling good history, but peace makes poor reading.”
So, when an occupied peace was imposed upon the South, Americans look upon the era of 1865-77 as a time to “Go West, young man”, of cattle drives, Indian wars, and gunslingers in lawless mining towns.
If we give any thought to what was happening in the South, we like to think that freed slaves were dancing joyously, the Ku Klux Klan was being tamed by northern occupation troops, railroads and cities were being rebuilt — and oh, yes, there was some corruption going on down there, too.
The honest politicians in Congress, meaning those that disdained bribes, were the most ruthless and brutal. They were called Radical Republicans, and they imitated the French Jacobins in their desire to humiliate and crush Southern culture, and anyone else who got in their way. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, William Seward, Ben Wade, Salmon Chase, Henry Davis and Edwin Stanton led the way.
Sumner considered the seceded and defeated states as having committed suicide, and could only be readmitted on conditions laid out by Congress. Although Radicals were only a minority, they utterly controlled it by bullying and patronage.
Stevens was even worse, arguing that the South should be treated as conquered foreign territory, under military law with suspension of civilian rights.
Both got their way.
Why should this be important now? Because under these conditions, the 14th Amendment was passed, whose implications are even now rearing its ugly head.
It is the 14th that brought us Roe v. Wade, homosexual “rights”, feminism, the erasure of freedom of religion, speech, and press, CRT, transgenderism, and the entire lot of contemporary nonsense that passes as supposedly thoughtful political discourse.
And if you haven’t noticed, is now being used as an attempt to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. Supposed constitutional “scholars” have decided that Donald Trump is disqualified from ever running for president, despite the fact he has never been charged or convicted of encouraging a rebellion, and has twice defeated impeachments.
This brings hypocrisy to even higher levels we never dreamed of a few years ago.
But let’s go right to the bottom line: the 14th Amendment was illegally approved and violated Article V of the Constitution, which lays out how an amendment is to be passed. No constitutional scholar, even those who are trying to defend Trump, wants to discuss this because it is a bridge too far for them. The media would pounce on them with the usual tripe of being a conspiracy theorist, racist or zany. That’s because they cannot even look up the easily discovered truth of what U.S. presidents, senators, congressmen, individual legislatures and media outlets had to say, even as late as the 1960s.
The Deep State dog-pile on Trump should be seen as an opportunity not only to salvage our voting rights, but as a way to fundamentally correct the errors that have gone on for too long, and have morphed into an evil that not even the Radical Republicans would have desired. It is easy to see how the 14th is a deeply ingrained cancerous tumor into the body politic and has metastasized into a wanton killer of freedom, then and now.
A blatant self-contradiction existed when the 14th was allegedly passed. You need 2/3 of both the House and Senate to send an amendment to the state legislatures. But the south was not permitted to seat its elected officials in late 1865, which met the presidential conditions, formulated by Lincoln and implemented by Johnson, for readmission into the union.
This violated not only how an amendment should be passed, but also another vitally important clause of Article V, which reads: “And that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Thus, they were not in the union at all until the Radical Republicans permitted them. With such an overwhelming majority controlled by the Radicals, the 14th passed muster in both chambers, after much debate in committee and on the floor about its implications.
But it still needed to pass ¾ of the state legislatures. So — now the South was to be jolly-well considered as in the union, as a condition for re-entry! And so eventually, through an increase of occupation troops, corrupt southern “scalawag” politicians and rigged elections, together with a resignation of many people, led to the passage of the southern legislatures.
Are Puerto Rico, or Guam or the Virgin Islands in the union today? Of course not, because they are not states, but territories or a commonwealth. Anyone trying to get an amendment passed today, and wanting to include their approval, would be horse-laughed out of the room — yet that is exactly how the 14th was passed.
Even some northern states, watching this travesty, considered repealing their approval. Some constitutional “scholars”, even today, say that a state cannot do that. They obviously have completely ignored the 10th amendment. It’s a commonly held bad habit since the day it was approved — which followed the guidelines set down in Article V, by the way, unlike the 14th.
“You can’t have it both ways!” is a familiar complaint used a thousand times a day in our individual lives. But yes, you can, actually, if you are powerful enough to force your will upon your victims.
The Dobbs decision reversed only one of the evils of the 14th, the mass murder of our future generations, done in the name of “privacy” found in the “penumbra” (partial shadow) and “emanations” (gaseous fumes) of a spuriously approvedconstitutional amendment. The latest constitutional crisis (we’ve been in one since the beginning) should be seen as an opportunity to stop merely pruning branches, but to go to the root of our problems.
The Deep State is not finished. As Donald Trump has said countless times, “They are not after me, they are after you. I only got in their way.”
Bob Bird is chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show on KSRM radio, Kenai.
The last sentence certainly makes much sense, regardless of where you stand on a personal level. Can’t ever recall a great leader who had a great personality as well, but there sure has been a lot of smooth talking crooks.
Absolutely accurate. Many of the problems created that let to disasters were the result of the “winner” lording over the “loser”. Never was there a more prescient statement than “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Perdition is in sight. at this point, and not just for the deserving.
Great article Bob
Thanks for the continuing education.
Excellent commentary! I too have wondered how it was that the southern States could have been considered to be simultaneously in the Union (for their “ratifications” of the 14th Amendment to mean anything) and not in the Union (as their “ratification” of the 14th Amendment was imposed as a condition on their re-entry). I hadn’t thought of the Article V provision guaranteeing each State’s equal representation in the Senate, though, which is an interesting angle as the 14th Amendment may not have even been legitimately proposed in the first place.
Texas v White (1869) (majority opinion written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase):
“………The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual”. And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union”. It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?…….When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States……..”
The Confederate states were never not still in the Union. They were in revolt, and they were brought back into submission militarily. And that is exactly what is going to happen again if states or localities revolt again and declare themselves to be independent.
One of the radical republicans who forced a yes vote on the Southern States. This article only conforms what happens when Americans are not taught their real history. Like all countries, we have our share of good and bad. We should be more open about it so that we can learn where we are and where we want to go. To do less is to condemn the future to more of the same mistakes.
“One of the radical republicans who forced a yes vote on the Southern States………”
The Confederate states attempted to secede via armed revolt after Lincoln won the presidency, even though they had banned him from the ballot, and after decades of political struggle trying to expand the institution of slavery (much like Demonrats now try to import votes in illegal immigrants) as new states joined the union, even states where slave labor made no economic sense.
Their revolution failed. Miserably. Nearly 2% of the nation’s population died in that revolution. The final decisiveness was carried out with the direct goal of total war and destruction.
The 14th Amendment, like obedience of pre-war constitutional law, was imposed upon many obstinate citizens, localities, and states who would have preferred a guerrilla war to the surrender that a wise Lee chose. Yet, while many bemoan Reconstruction, it was more merciful than many will admit. This was the wish of Lincoln, and it was carried forward well by Johnson and Grant, and this after the decision to completely destroy Southern industry and will to rebel with total war.
Remember that Andrew Johnson was impeached by a merciless Congress much in the same way that Trump is repeatedly harassed by similar upstarts today.
I doubt that a second Reconstruction period would be as merciful today. Too bad that we’re on our way to finding out.
Very good points.
The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
The US Constitution also prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Bird makes a rookie mistake when he takes issue with Trump not being convicted. A conviction is not required by the constitution.
The extreme left want the badly damaged Trump to be the nominee. They know Trump lost the popular vote to both Hillary Clinton AND the corrupt, demented, Joe Biden. It was only the electoral votes that “saved” Trump (and us) from a Hillary presidency.
Its time for the Republican party to back away from the circus carnival that is Trump. Polling shows Niki Haley beating Biden in the General by a significant margin. This scares the left. She’s smart. She’s pro gun, and pro life. She did a good job in her two terms as Governor of S. Carolina. She pushed for tax cuts, and less regulations. She doesn’t have any of the baggage Trump carries. She will give us lots of independent voters which are crucial to defeating Biden.
Trump is too old. He dodged the draft. He grew our national debt by $7.8 trillion. He left classified documents laying around just like Biden did- and this endangers US national security. He lost to Biden because of his irrational behavior.
“……A conviction is not required by the constitution……..”
Due Process is required by the Constitution, and thus a conviction is required by due process. We cannot have 350 million opinions in a republic. Due Process is the process by which we check tyranny.
That was a lot of words to say you don’t understand, and you suffer from TDS.
LOL
“The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States………”
So what about Kamala Harris and Niki Haley?
Looks to me like violating the Constitution is the regular goal, not just a happenstance.
Haley was born in Bamberg, South Carolina- the state she later became a two- term governor of. Harris was born in California.
Are you a racist Reggie? Or just a misogynist?
Neither of Nikki Haley’s or Kamala Harris’ parents were American citizens when both women were born in the U.S. We now call such children “anchor babies”, but I don’t think they can be called “natural born Americans”.
“………Are you a racist Reggie? Or just a misogynist?………”
I’m a constitutionalist, half black, and the great grandson of slaves (both sides of my family) born in Louisiana and freed by the Emancipation Proclamation signed by Abraham Lincoln, which, by the way, confirms yet again that the secessionist states were rebellious, not independent as they claimed and still try to establish. Try reading the Emancipation Proclamation.
Slowly. Carefully. Maybe that might help your comprehension…….if you can stop looking under the rug for boogermen…………
Reg, SCOTUS has ruled on this matter:
“The Supreme Court has stated that, properly understood, the definition of “natural-born” covers anybody who was a US citizen at birth, meaning they did not have to go through naturalization at a later time.”
Strange that you have no problem with Trump running, but you do with people (women) who were born here.
If elected, Trump will also be an immediate “lame duck”. Better, IMO, to elect someone who can serve two terms rather than just one. It will take a lot longer than four years to fix this current mess.
CNN parrot,, your TDS is consuming you.
Take an Axe to the root.
This deserves wider distribution. Please consider making that happen.
Let’s see … Salmon Chase spoke in the 1860s. He apparently ignored what Th. Jefferson said in his 1st Inaugural (1801) about secession, what Q. Adams said in 1845, or Lincoln himself in the 1840s when he was in Congress. Chase’s words are imaginary and self-serving principles, espoused by a truly partisan politician who spoke in his own interest. You also are apparently ignorant of what NY, RI and VA said as a condition for joining the union. Get a little better read. You are in over your head.
Chase wrote the deciding opinion in a Supreme Court case after every one of your cites, and after a bloody civil war, not a political speech. It is constitutional law, not political rhetoric. That opinion is a decision rendered by a majority of our Supreme Court Justices of the time of the case. It stands as the law of the land.
Of course, your individual opinion may differ, but it has all the power and authority of a slight breeze in the night while the peaceful citizens of society sleep in preparation of the following day of peaceful prosperity.
Perhaps re-enrollment (or initial enrollment, since you appear unaware of the process) in a high school civics class might help you understand the difference between constitutional law and opinionated rhetoric?
Again, the opinion recognized that one of the two means by which the Union might be dissolved was revolution. That was attempted in the 1860’s, and it failed miserably. Talk of another such revolution fills the air, much like your post might have been seen hanging from various street lamp posts in history. Perhaps it’s time to get this over with……..again? Lots of folks appear really difficult to teach with peaceful civics and history education curriculum. Warfare tends to have great power capturing ones attention where elementary teachers might fail if they have big windows in their classrooms.
But, then, you might be “in over your head”…………
Reggie, only a tyrant, or a tyrant’s sycophant, would dare declare that a political union must be the equivalent of a roach motel — you can ONLY enter, but never leave.
Face it, Reggie: break-up of the USA is coming, and I will welcome it when it does.
Secession holds the only future for liberty in (parts of) this country.
“…….Face it, Reggie: break-up of the USA is coming…….”
You may be correct. If true, it will turn North America into another Africa, Asia, or Europe with a destiny of perpetual continental warfare between a dozen or so pipsqueak dictators and refugees seeking asylum in areas formerly moved into without immigration roadblocks. Try to imagine Europe after the fall of Rome. They didn’t call it the Dark Ages out of the blue.
Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it.
Reggie, you make a valid point, but compare the potential ramifications of the breakup of the USA to the manifest evils and rapid descent into tyranny that we are experiencing now. I will gladly take a chance on the former.
Besides, do you arguments in favor of centralized control have any bearing on what happened upon breakup to and in the USSR, or Czechoslovakia, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the Kalmar Union of Scandinavia?
If insurrection can include questioning the validity of an election, we`re screwed.
You would think it should include things like covert incitement to riot by the deep state, bribing public election officials, stuffing ballot boxes, phoney special counsel investigations based on falsified warrants, abandoning immigaration law in favor of an undefended border, etc.,etc.
Well, if there is gonna be another civil war, at least we’re importing young men to fight it for us. Otherwise send them to Europe or Yemen or somewhwere.
“Reggie, only a tyrant, or a tyrant’s sycophant, would dare declare that a political union must be the equivalent of a roach motel — you can ONLY enter, but never leave…….”
Neither I or the Texas v. White decision stated that. Yet again, due to your obvious reading deficiency, I’ll quote the key words on the TWO methods by which the union can be dissolved:
“…….There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution OR THROUGH CONSENT OF THE STATES……..”
Catch it that time? The reverse of statehood is the peaceful way of dissolution………and which will never happen due to a dearth of voters stupid enough to vote for such a dissolution, even though we’ve seen a steady campaign of dumbing people so completely as to make such acts remotely possible.
This is why South Carolina seceded in 1861. They couldn’t force everybody in the nation to vote their wishes into reality, so they threw themselves to the floor kicking and screaming, their southern state siblings did likewise, and they all ended up with a serious spanking.
Immaturity tends to work out like that………
The article was NOT about secession, it was about Article V and Amendment XIV. Deal with the issue. The supposed devotion to the Constitution by so-called “unionists” apparently ignores the simply understood rules about amendment approval, and the obvious cheating that was done to get the 14th “approved”. All Reggie needs to do is refute the contentions made. But it is not possible. The 14th was passed in the same way that a square peg gets hammered into a round hole. Then, the hammerer steps back and says, “Look! It fits!”
I will allow the contention that the 14th Amendment may have been shoved down recalcitrant throats, and I opine that perhaps that was a bit too kind. “Insurrection” trials should have been held by the thousands along with a new industry of gallows construction during Reconstruction. Perhaps the surviving secessionists might have been a bit more cooperative. But mercy was the stated and recorded priority, so forcing black-letter law ‘mercifully’ upon a generation of immoral upstarts who “interpret” property rights poorly may have been necessary.
I’m also not surprised that such whining recurs today, another age of rebellion and accusations of rebellion.
This reflection also illustrates what happens when morality has to be legislated or constitutionalized. Most folks don’t need it, and the folks who do will resist it forever. Such is the law of unintended consequences; tragic, but often necessary and expected.
“……..The article was NOT about secession, it was about Article V and Amendment XIV……..”
Mr. Bird is pointing out the use of the 14th for the growth of a litany of the selfish sins of today. He is correct constitutionally, but the real roots of today lies with the growth of immorality spawned by the sexual revolution which started in the 1920’s and grew into what it is today, complete with a gender dysphoria epidemic fertilized by the same folks who nurtured the sexual revolution throughout the 20th Century, and which I suppose we can expect the APA to de-list as a disorder soon.
The problem isn’t the 14th Amendment, and if you insist it is, good luck with your future.
In July of 1868 the 14th Amendment was imposed under color of law. It was added to the Territorial Constitution known as The Constitution of the United States of America and the corporate charter “Constitution” of The United States of America, Incorporated, both without ratification by the actual American States. It was not added to the original Federal Constitution – The Constitution for the united States of America. Their Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional because they applied military law to American civilians. People of the South were declared guilty of rebellion and penalized, charged for war reparations, redefined as criminals and Municipal Citizen slaves via use of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto Law under military rule. 14th Amendment US Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
“…….Their Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional because they applied military law to American civilians……”
LOL…….that tends to occur after a state applies military force to federal troops on a federal military reservation. Can you say Ft. Sumpter? Martial law can be validly and constitutionally established by supreme political authority in wartime as held in Luther v. Borden (1849). In Luther, the Court held that state declarations of martial law were conclusive and therefore not subject to judicial review. In this case, the Court found that the Rhode Island legislature had been within its rights in resorting to the rights and usages of war in combating insurrection in that state.
Sharron ,
Well said .
It appears reggie means well but he struggles with connecting dots.
The reason the states seceded was due to unnecessarily aggressive political polices .
The reason they fought with violence was because they were being bullied and forced.
Only a damn fool bullies a southerner . Regardless of right or wrong they felt their honor was at stake at fought back. Reggie struggles to understand that honor and brotherhood is worth dying for in the old south. So gentle abe gave us a civil war and huge numbers of innocent young men on both sides died in another senseless war .
Then we got the unconstitutional 14 th which is being used to undermine freedom and democracy. Thanks to all the morons that don’t understand diplomacy it is destroying everything.
Sure if might is right the union won (bullying/violence) they destroyed the usa in the process. Thanks !
Roach motel is well said. You can come in but can’t leave!💩👺
“…….Only a damn fool bullies a southerner . Regardless of right or wrong they felt their honor was at stake at fought back. Reggie struggles to understand that honor and brotherhood is worth dying for in the old south……..”
So, “right or wrong” (they were both wrong and immoral), and because they had run out of territories seeking statehood in slavery instead of free states, and because they were going to lose more votes in Congress as a result, the leaders of the seceding southern states chose armed revolt. That’s fine……….I suppose. I prefer peace. They didn’t. That is one of the two methods SCOTUS recognized in Texas v White for independence.
They lost. They surrendered upon that loss. There were guerrilla campaigns afterwards, notably by Missouri guerrillas who conducted a losing guerrilla campaign during the war and anti-black terrorists (KKK). They were put down, and the criminals hung or shot. Lincoln was assassinated after the surrender. There was an impeachment after the assassination. In many ways, the war still continues. Your post is an illustration of that rebellion. Okay. Fine.
So if you must, revolt again. Plenty of folks are. They burn up downtown districts. They cheat in elections. They can’t live with the system. Revolt is part of the program. But so is response. Again, armed revolt tends to get folks dead, and it is at least as often the revolters as the rulers.
Oh, but as an individual, this isn’t the Roach Motel. You CAN leave. It might beat dying at the hands of government or living like a loser. But perhaps, as you write, dying in brotherhood is the greater value. It’s your call.
Reggie
You often do a great job of commenting.
Your comment here is as usual pretty good. Yet you distort a lot .
What you missed- im not a southerner.Nor do I traffic in southern rebellion.
congress in the 1800s was dealing with southern pride.
Diplomacy is about getting your way without insulting the other side and starting wars. Understanding the opposing sides.
Thus the politicians of the time did the nation wrong by creating an unnecessary war .
The residue of their mistakes gave us the un American 14 th amendment.
We are now dealing with the remnants of the mistake Lincoln helped create .
This mistake could cause a second civil war if Trumps voters rebel. A possible occurrence.
The 1860s mistake could cause the end destruction of the USA if America first leaders are all denied government controls/ ballot placement.
It could lead to a globalist regime.
Highly likely. In fact.
Years down the road Which eventually would lead to a massive civil war for independence when humans chaff under globalist control that wont have adequate representation.
Rebellion has a respected place in national history. ( your disrespect of it is misguided)
The southerners should have been treated more honorably.
More fairly. Paid for what was being taken.
Civilly shown the errors of their ways .
Not forced to recognize might is right.
An illogical and inaccurate concept.
Read the Annals of America for the years in question. I believe, perhaps in error, they have a set in Alaska.
I composed the best and most current comment I have ever made but it did not pass the less knowledgeable censors of these pages which is unfortunate because the comment was taken from directly from source documents and the diction was instructive. It is not customary to see such instruction anywhere in Alaska and more is the pity.
M:
“………Strange that you have no problem with Trump running, but you do with people (women) who were born here……….”
I simply need valid clarification, which you didn’t fully clear up. There remains questions regarding anchor babies, illegal immigration, and the definition of “natural born citizen”, especially with regard to POTUS elections. We’ve gone through this with McCain, Romney, and others as well. Gender is meaningless to my question, and your repeated use of it elicits even more suspicion. You write, and in quotes:
“………The Supreme Court has stated that, properly understood, the definition of “natural-born” covers anybody who was a US citizen at birth, meaning they did not have to go through naturalization at a later time………”
Why didn’t you cite the case title as I did in Texas v White? What is the SCOTUS case you refer to? Where did that quote come from?
Excuse my suspicious nature, but this is the Age of the Lie, and liars are everywhere. Please reference your citations, or they aren’r valid. Further, a failure to answer those questions will confirm to me what you truly are.
American:
“……congress in the 1800s was dealing with southern pride………Rebellion has a respected place in national history. ( your disrespect of it is misguided)……..”
Ask ‘what caused the Civil War?’, and you’ll get different answers from different people; slavery, abolition, Dred Scott, Roger Taney, northern aggression, states rights, southern pride, etc. That fact is yet another illustration of how the first casualty in any war is truth. The lead up to 1860 lasted for decades, and truth died during that period, many years before hostilities broke out.
Hostilities didn’t even begin at Ft. Sumter. Kansas and Harpers Ferry bled before Sumter fell.
The theme of the spring of 1865 was mercy, a remarkable focus after the total war waged the previous several months. Confederate officers and political leaders were not rounded up and prosecuted. Indeed, although Alexander Stevens was not allowed to sit in the Senate after the war, he did serve in the House.
Even in an atmosphere of mercy, southern individuals resisted Reconstruction. Yes, the reforms and changes were imposed. You appear to consider that persecution. I see it as merciful change. In the end, it stands until either the people of the nation vote otherwise or another revolution throws it out. My bet is that it will be another revolution, it will also end in total war, and the end of this one won’t feature as much mercy when it’s over.
I hope I don’t live to see it.
Alaska should lead the way with taking Biden off the ballot for advocating for an insurrection by opening our borders to military age foreign nationals from know terrorist states, with the his own FBI director saying there are “blinking red lights” warning about terrorist cells waiting to pounce on America. Now that is advocating for a true insurrection. I’d be happy if the Lt Gov would just secure our election data and purge our rolls to mitigate election fraud. That seems to be too controversial, taking Biden off the ballot, mercy!
But, If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander?
The down side is, liberals have made mockery with the USA’s standing in the word, with banana court third world tactics of disqualifying a candidate that’s never been convicted of anything, by violating that other troublesome part of the 14th Amendment, Due Process!
As much as I hate to even think of a second term “Biden Presidency” the thought of removing anyone from a ballot in a republic is even more disgusting. It smacks of dictatorship and disregard for the citizens of this republic. There are times when you must remember not to copy the other side.
Comments are closed.