I Have A Question (or two or three)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Every once in awhile I (and lots of others) ask questions of those liberals and Marxists that disagree with us as they seek to portray the South and its inhabitants as evil racists and partakers of something they refer to as “white privilege.”

Many, if not most, of the “you are all evil white racists” crowd persist in promoting the canard that the South only fought the “Civil War” so Southern folks could hang onto their slaves. And along with that utter foolishness they continue to parrot the discredited line that “the North fought the war to free the slaves.” So I have a question for these folks. I’ve asked it before, but since no answer has been forthcoming, I will ask it again.

If the North was so gung ho to free the slaves that they were willing to fight against the South to do so, why didn’t they start their emancipation process by first freeing those slaves that were in bondage in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri? For one reason or another, all four of those states ended up remaining in the Union and, as such, wouldn’t it have been logical for the North to free all the slaves in those state first? No liberal, socialist, or communist (but I repeat myself here) has ever answered that question for me. In fact, they rather ignore it. The slaves in those slave states that stayed, for whatever reason, under Union control were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified, after the War was over.

In Missouri, socialist lover John Fremont enacted some sort of emancipation proclamation early in  the War and Mr. Lincoln promptly annulled that action. One would almost think that Lincoln did not agree that the war was being fought to free the slaves, but that he had some other agenda in mind–such as preserving the Union by the force of arms. Again, this question has never been answered for me, so I am left with the conclusion that our Leftist friends do not have an answer to it and so they pretend it was never asked.

In another instance, I wrote an article a few years back noting that one of the main issues in the War was the question of tariffs and how much those tariffs harmed the Southern economy. To this article, I got a snide reply from some kind of Yankee activist, who blithely informed me that “Slavery was the real issue in this war. Tariffs are a dead letter.” Do I need to state that I disagreed with him? To him, and others of his ilk, my question is this: Why, if tariffs were such a “dead letter” did Lincoln, in an interview with Colonel John B. Baldwin of Virginia, as reported in R. L. Dabney’s book Discussions state that if he let the South go “Then what would become of my tariffs?” Dabney noted here, “Hence, when Virginia offered him a safe way to preserve the Union, he preferred to destroy the Union and preserve his tariffs. The war was conceived in duplicity and brought forth in iniquity.”

Some have contended that Lincoln was, somehow, involved with the Illuminists, and, while I can’t say that for sure, actions like this on his part surely do make one wonder. We know he was involved with the socialists and Marxists. Donnie Kennedy and I showed that much in Lincoln’s Marxists so is it any great leap to think his involvement may have gone even further?

My third question (remember I noted the possibility of three questions in my title to this article) is another one I have never heard addressed. is–how can a political entity that is no longer a state in the Union ratify the 14th Amendment in  order to get back into a Union they are no longer a part of? You see, that’s what happened with the 14th Amendment. The Kennedy Brothers, in their book, The South Was Right noted this on page 172 of the second edition of that book. They stated, in part, “The North, 1n 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same Union that in 1861 refused to let the South secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway, and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in that Union it had legally rejected!”

Sorry, but I guess here I have yet another question.  If the Southern states ratified the 14th Amendment while they were still not officially part of the Union, are their ratifications even legal? That’s a question I think should be asked and I have never seen anyone ask it. How come? I supposed there is kind of a twisted Yankee/Marxist “logic” to this situation. After all, if the federal government can force non-states to ratify amendments in order to again become legitimate states, then why, in our own day can’t we allow illegal immigrants and other non-citizens to vote in our elections? After all, some of them might become citizens  some day. And if you can just bring in enough of them, especially those who are here for  the freebies, to tip the vote totals so that citizens can be outvoted by non-citizens in many areas, then you have effectively begun to change the attitudes and the direction  this country is going in. Those of you who are in favor of letting every overseas Tom, Dick, and Harry vote in our elections maybe ought to think about that.

And as far as my original questions go, no one has ever satisfactorily answered them so I am still waiting. The Leftists among us  prefer not to deal with these issues, but I think, so long as they insist on bringing them up, we should force them to.

2 thoughts on “I Have A Question (or two or three)

  1. Pingback: I Have A Question (or two or three) | Flyover-Press.com

  2. Question: If these states ratified the 14th Amendment while they were still officially out of the Union are their ratifications even legal??? (By them the former CSA state residents had already been voted back into the Union…BUT, the provision excluded any CSA military and anyone supporting the CSA military! Many of the state ratifications were forced by the Union military commanders under the Lincoln Martial Law declaration. Southerners were allowed to vote for Union Congressional delegates, but if the Union Military Martial Law commanders didn’t approve of them they would simply replace them with their own chosen delegate, which formed what is known as a ‘rump congress’. Rump delegates represented may former CSA states after The War such as South Carolina–Al Barrs, Jr.)

    Now for the good stuff!
    The 14th Amendment was one of three amendments passed by the a rump Union Congress who refused to allow delegates from the former CSA to even enter the chamber–the pro-industrial Northeast Yankee delegates locked the southern agriculture state’s delegates out of debating or voting on the 14th Amendment, even after they southern delegates and residents had been voted back in the Union; and it is factually, if you study America history, as I have, since I was 19 years old. I am not going on 81 and a lot of tannic stained cool creek water has flowed under my ole wooden bridge since I was 19…

    Here is what every legal citizen of the U.S.A. needs to know…

    The 14th Amendment Was Never Ratified!

    By Moses E. Washington
    Revised 6/1/2003
    Posted by Al Barrs, Jr. TRUE AMERICAN HISTORY



    Moses Washington Disclaimer:
    The material in this essay is for educational purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice about what you should or should not do. The information herein is to assist you in performing your own due diligence before implementing any strategy…

    Formal notice is hereby given that: You have 10 days after reviewing any material on this Website to notify Truth Sets Us Free (TSUF) in writing of any word, phrase, reference or statement which is inaccurate, incorrect, misleading or not in full compliance with state and Federal law and to give TSUF 30 days to correct and cure any alleged potential flaw. TSUF’s intent is to be in strict compliance with the law.

    What we now call the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most controversial
    Amendment that has ever been proposed and passed into law! (Among other controversial amendments were the other two “Reconstruction Amendments” passed by a rump vindictive radical Union Congress: Amendments 13, 14, 15.–Al Barrs)

    We will see that its proposal and ratification process was fraught with irregularities and unconstitutional actions.

    Congress Approves but the States Ratify Amendments to the Constitution!

    In addition to approving proposed amendments, Congress has the power to amend the Constitution (https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-amend-the-constitution-3368310), but it doesn’t have the constitutional power to ratify any Amendments. Amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process.

    Constitution Article 5, Amending the U.S. Constitution:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

    Both chambers of the Congress must approve the proposed constitutional amendment by a two-thirds majority, after which the measure is sent to the States. The proposed congressional approved amendment must then be approved by three-quarters of State legislatures or citizens in in conference.

    In order to provide historical background for the period in question, let’s review some events that occurred after the Civil War ended. In 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation of Amnesty” for former Southern state residents. This action was in keeping with President Lincoln’s wishes to heal the nation. (Lincoln should have wished to heal the nation–it was him who started his Tariff War, a little short low casualty war that got away from him!

    Johnson established provisional governments in each of the southern states. (These do called “provisional governments were nothing more than Martial Law administered with iron hands and the sward by Union military officers!–Al Barrs) The Southern States were instructed ordered to call constitutional conventions in order to form new governments. Each Southern state formed new governments and elected new representatives and government officers. (However if the elected delegates did not act in accordance with the Union Military directors they would dismiss the elected delegates and appoint delegates who did what the Commanders told them to do, including what to vote against and what to vote on! This Martial law action on the part of the Union military commanders formed what came to be called “rump” legislatures, which means a legislative body would be part duly elected delegates and part Union Military Commander appointed delegates…–Al Barrs) At that time, only white men had the right to vote in the Union, since the 15th Amendment which established equal voting rights had not yet been approved nor ratified by the States.

    Senators and Representatives for the U.S. Congress from the former Confederate States of America were also elected by the people or selected by the Union Martial Law Commander. These Southern states representatives were refused admission by the Union Congress when they appear at the opening of the U.S. Congress. The various Southern state governments continued to function during 1866. (The Union Congress blatantly violated their own Constitution by denying the Southern States their constitutional right to vote even though they had been reinstated into the Union with the right of Suffrage, the right to vote, by President Andrew Johnson!–Al Barrs)

    Before an Amendment can be “ratified” by the States, it must first be proposed…

    The U.S. Constitution provides two methods of proposing an Amendment: By two thirds of the States or by two thirds of both houses of Congress.

    The congressional amending method was used in the case of the 14th Amendment. 1) The Constitutional Article 5 Section that discusses amendments reads: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal “suffrage” (vote) in the U.S. Senate”! 2) When the U.S. Congress “proposed” the 14th Amendment, twenty-three Senators were unlawfully excluded (They were “locked out” of the U.S. Senate chambers who refused to seat these constitutional delegates!–Al Barrs) from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of proposed Amendment. Those Senators excluded and locked out of the Senate chambers included both Senators from eleven Southern States and one Senator from New Jersey. This constitutional failure by the U.S. Senate alone is sufficient to invalidate the so-called fourteenth Amendment because it was never properly proposed and never properly ratified by the States!

    1 U.S. Constitution, Article 5
    2 ibid.

    When an amendment is proposed by the Congress, it must be “ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the States …”

    3) When the proposed amendment was sent to the States for ratification, there were thirty-seven states in the Union/United States. This means that ratification required the approval of twenty-eight states!

    Said another way, it would only take ten states rejecting the 14th Amendment to defeat it.
    The congressionally proposed 14th Amendment was sent to the States for ratification in June of 1866. …By March 1867, twenty States had ratified and thirteen had rejected the proposed 14th Amendment. This mean that the amendment failed!!!

    These totals do not include the actions of Tennessee, which is generally regarded as ratifying the proposed 14th Amendment. The Tennessee legislature was not in session when the proposed 14th Amendment was sent, so a special session of the Tennessee legislature had to be called.

    The Tennessee “Senate” ratified the proposed 14th Amendment. However, the Tennessee House of Representatives could not assemble a quorum as required in order to legally act…

    Finally, after several days and “considerable effort (Pressure and military force from United State Military Martial Law Commanders,–Al Barrs) two of the recalcitrant members of the House were arrested and brought into a committee room opening into the Chamber of the House by U.S. Military troops. They refused to vote when their names were called, whereupon the Speaker ruled that there was no quorum!

    The Speaker’s decision, however, was overruled, and the Amendment was declared ratified on July 19, 1866, by a vote of 43 to 11, the two members under arrest in the adjoining committee
    room not voting.” 4) After learning that the proposed amendment’s failure, the U.S. Congress unconstitutionally passed the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (14th Amendment).

    This unconstitutional act of the Tennessee House of Representative’s “Speaker” overthrew and annulled the existing Southern State governments of the ten southern states that had rejected the ratification of the 14th Amendment!!!

    Recall that these new Southern State governments had just been established in 1865 with new State Constitutions. The unconstitutional act by the Tennessee House Speaker, sanctioned by the hostile U.S. Congress, placed these States under Union martial law and required the ratification of the proposed amendment before Southern States could be readmitted to representation in the U.S. Congress, (which was unconstitutional and only achieved at the barrel of Union guns!–Al Barrs)

    U.S. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act because he believed it was

    President Johnson’s veto message read: “I submit to Congress whether this measure is
    not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in
    palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive
    of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of
    the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.” President
    Johnson went on to point out that each of the Southern States had “legitimate” United States governments!

    “It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with
    all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a free State.”

    3 ibid.
    4 Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, H. E. Flack, p. 165; Tenn. House Journal (Extra Session), 1866,
    p. 25

    “They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make,
    administer and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs!”

    The U.S. Congress was undaunted as it overrode the President’s veto of the Reconstruction Act.

    After the Reconstruction Act was passed (unconstitutionally passed and the President’s veto overridden), two states (Nebraska and Iowa) ratified the proposed amendment and three states (New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon; 5) reversed their ratifications! So, without considering the actions taken under reconstruction, the final tally was nineteen for, sixteen against, and two (California and Tennessee) not acting.

    As a result of the “Reconstruction Acts” three Amendments were passed by the U.S. Congress in total between the dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867. The ten Southern States were organized by Union Military officers into military districts in which martial law were declared!

    Their lawfully constituted legislature was illegally removed by U.S. “military force” (as in War!) and they were replaced by illegitimate (rump) legislatures selected by the U.S. Military Martial Law commander. Seven of these legislatures eventually was forced and bribed to ratify the anti-constitutional 14th Amendment.

    The “official” vote tally is another source of controversy!

    On July 20, 1868, William H. Seward, U.S. Secretary of State, issued a Proclamation 6) that listed the “official” results. His tally showed twenty-three states that voluntarily ratified, six states that ratified under martial law military force, military coercion and bribery, and two states that voluntarily reversed their ratifications.

    Seward said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification”.

    Seward also said that the Amendment (14th) was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.”

    Seward’s report also called into question the ratifications of (Southern) States who were under martial Law!

    I think you will agree that Seward’s reservations were rather startling. It is patently obvious to any thinking person that if a State has the right to ratify an amendment that it equally has the right to withdraw the ratification. (Yes, and this same principle applied to the Southern agriculture States what had withdrawn from the Union!–Al Barrs)

    It is equally obvious that any action which is taken under compulsion (southern states vote to ratify) is an invalid action!

    The U.S. Congress was not satisfied with Seward’s proclamation due to the reservations it contained. On July 21, 1868, the U.S. Congress passed a Joint Resolution 7) that declaring that three fourths of the several States of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. They had not!

    On July 28, 1868, Seward bowed to the action of U.S. Congress and issued his Proclamation declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the Amendment. (Seward falsified and violated the U.S. Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    In such an environment, one would hope that the highest court in our nation, the U.S. Supreme Court, would bring some clarity. But alas, such is not the case. In one of the leading cases on the validity of the 14th Amendment the court stated;

    “The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the 14th Amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of the U.S. Congress. The new legislatures ratified the Amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.” 8) In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not bother to rule on the constitutionality of the U.S. Congress sweeping away valid State legislatures in the Reconstruction Acts. The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that at no time were these Southern States out of the Union 9) (We know that’s false. True Lincoln would never admit that the agriculture states had seceded from the Union, and in that case Lincoln had ordered military assaults and “Civil War” on the withdrawn Southern agriculture state’s residents!–Al Barrs)

    5 Oregon Senate Journal; 1868, pp. 66 and 131; Oregon House Journal, 1868, p. 273
    6 Statutes at Large, v 15, p. 706
    7 House Journal: 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1126.

    In the Coleman case, the court did make a slip to reveal that they understood what had happened in the case of the 14th Amendment:

    “Whenever official notice is received at the U.S. Department of State that any Amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the constitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the U. S. Secretary of State shall forthwith (immediately) cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.” [Emphasis Added]

    The Supreme Court, in the Coleman case, did lightly review questions pertaining to the unconstitutional ratification of the 14th Amendment, and of attempts by two States to rescind their previous ratification of the Amendment.

    “…the question of the efficacy of ratifications by State legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the U.S. Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.” [Emphasis Added]

    One would hope that the highest court in the land (The U.S. Supreme Court) would properly exercise their Constitutional responsibilities to provide “check and balances” to the other branches of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court jurist’s statement that it was an issue for the political arena was an act of cowardice and wholly inconsistent with the high court’s pattern of judicial statutory annulment!!!

    The precedent for judicial statutory annulment was established in 1803 where The Court ruled “”…it is apparent that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the Government of courts, as well as that of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?” 10) The unconstitutional practice of “judicial review” [as it is also called] continues on even to this day.

    (“Judicial Review” too was a Supreme Court created “doctrine” not a law! Congress does not create nor the President sign IT was an act of Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshal in 1803 to create a precedence sign a “doctrine”–The Court creates it out of thin air to serve their own political purpose! The Court would use Court Created precedence and doctrines to base their future case decisions rather than relying on the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it is sworn to do! It supplanted the Founders “separation of powers” doctrine and gave the U.S. Supreme Court authority over the other two Government Branches; the Legislative and the Executive Branches!!! President and doctrines are nothing more than a rogue court’s attempt to bypass the Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    8 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972 (1938)
    9 White v. Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654
    10 Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

    It is often used as a legal tool to justify taking a position that differs from the legislature when the court wants to nullify a law.

    It appears that the court uses this technique only when it suites their motive and not necessarily when necessary to protect the rights of the citizens.

    The legal validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment has often been disputed. The
    Utah Supreme Court once ruled that the ratification of the 14th Amendment was invalid 11)

    For more than a hundred years now, the courts have applied the 14th Amendment to cases that have come before them. And although questions have been raised about both its language meaning and the legal correctness of its adoption process, Federal challenges to the ratification of the 14th Amendment have always fallen on deaf ears. Its long time usage and the lateness of the hour doctrines have allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the 14th Amendment as law (It isn’t law, it is unconstitutional!–Al Barrs) 12)

    11 See Dyett vs. Turner, 439 Pacific 266 (1968), and the numerous other cites therein.
    12 See Coleman vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s