Over two years ago – I declared war on Russia!
On October 10, 2019 at 8:00 P.M. I John G. Presco, Republican Presidential Candidate declare war on Russia. For the reason the leader of Russia launched a cyber-attack on Citizens of the United States with intent to corrupt our two party system. and for the reason a foreign power tried to destroy the Democratic Party, and for the reason Russia and others CORRUPTED the Republican Party, founded by my kindred, and for the reason the President of the United States is unfit for office, then I am forced to defend my Nation and Democracy by a Declaration of War. So be it!
John G. Presco
President of Royal Rosamond Press
Articles of War: For the reason all members of the Republican Party have hindered the investigation into Russian Meddling, and for the reason, said elected officials have thwarted the investigation into the Ukraine Threat, then I hereby re-found the Jessie Scouts, who will show up at every Republican event, and demand the candidate take ‘The Iron-clad Oath’. The New Radical Republicans will also accompany the Jessie Scouts and they will ask many questions about Putin, and certain Ukraine subversives, till they are Red, White, and Blue in the face! Drive the Russian-Ukraine Corruption from the Republican Party! Expose the Foreign Devils! Crush the Red Cap Menace!
Write your Congressmen and Senators and demand they sign the Russian Free Zone document that will be sent to them! Patrol your local Internet.
SHOUT THEM DOWN!
Mr. Giuliani dispatched Mr. Parnas and an associate, Igor Fruman, a Belarusian-American businessman, to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, where, despite fending off creditors at home, BuzzFeed reported, they ran up big charges at a strip club and the Hilton International hotel. Their mission was to find people and information that could be used to undermine the special counsel’s investigation, and also to damage former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a prospective Democratic challenger to Mr. Trump.
Over the past year, the two men connected Mr. Giuliani with Ukrainians who were willing to participate in efforts to push a largely unsubstantiated narrative about the Bidens. They played a key role in a campaign by pro-Trump forces to press for the removal of the United States ambassador to Ukraine on the grounds that she had not shown sufficient loyalty to the president as he pursued his agenda there.
Text of the Oath
I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.— Statutes at Large, Thirty Seventh Congress, Second SessionAt least four national security officials were so alarmed by the Trump administration’s attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes that they raised concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after President Trump’s July 25 call with that country’s president, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the matter.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/at-least-four-national-security-officials-raised-alarms-about-ukraine-policy-before-and-after-trump-call-with-ukrainian-president/ar-AAIAZm4?ocid=spartandhp
On April 18, 2019, the day after my grandson, Tyler Hunt’s birthday, I announce I am a Republican Candidate for the Office of the United States, and, I am hereby Acting President. As my followers know, I am a Futurian. I can not say if I won the 2020 Presidential election because that would not be fair to the voters. Due to the extreme crisis King Bobo, Putin, and Sarah Sanders ‘Evangelical She-thug’ have brought into the world, I was elected by the Futurian Committee to serve as acting President.
I am amused at the Time Juggling Thug Wamp, William Barr, is performing with our Justice System. The Law is not a Time Machine. However, Dark Villains have tried to use it as such in order to escape punishment. Thanks to me, King Bobo, and his Thug Wamps, have failed to alter the Mueller report. Something went wrong. It was not supposed to happen this way. The King has no clothing!
In the next two years, I will reveal what was really going on behind the scenes. This will take – real time! Until then, enjoy your shining hour in the sun!
God save the Future America!
Futurian Candidate for President
Jessie Benton-Fremont described the Willamette Valley in her husband’s journals that she put together for publication. The world saw our Valley thru the hand of a woman. Jessie and her Scouts have gathered at one end of our Emerald Valley, and – advance! They will sweep Putin’s Russian Witches into the sea!
John ‘The Nazarite’
For years I have been begging women to step forth and reform the Jessie Scouts who conducted clandestine operations against the Hapsburgs in Mexico.
Jessie Scouts were irregular soldiers during the American Civil War on the side of the Union who operated in territory of the Confederate States of America in the southern United States in insurgency missions. The unit was created by John C. Frémont and named in honour of his wife, rather than of a Colonel Jessie, who was himself a myth. The initial Jessie Scout unit was formed in St. Louis, Missouri early in the war as the plan to develop independent scouts was implemented. The first man to command the scouts was Charles C. Carpenter. The Jessie Scouts wore Confederate uniforms with a white handkerchief over their shoulders to signify their allegiance to friendly troops, and number around 58 for much of the war, commanded by Major Henry Young.
The Jessie Scouts
By David L. Phillips
One of the most important functions of the cavalry during the Civil War involved the collection of intelligence. Skilled volunteers were selected from many cavalry regiments and these brave men moved in the advance or on the flanks of their regiments in order to prevent any surprise attacks. Frequently, they moved independently to collect information on the presence, condition, and intentions of the enemy forces in their vicinity.
In order to do this effectively, many of these men began to wear the enemy’s uniform as they conducted their operations. While in the enemy’s clothing, the volunteer scout was placing his life in his hands. The commonly applied rules of war defined his presence within the opposition’s lines. Wearing the wrong uniform was defined as an act of espionage, punishable by death. Their secret service to their country involved hazardous activities and could lead to summary execution, if apprehended. Dangers other than summary execution awaited the volunteers, but both armies continued to locate volunteers to perform the dangerous duty.
The Jessie Scout was a Federal soldier, dressed and armed a la Rebel. He was named after Mrs. Jessie Fremont, wife of the General of that name, who first suggested that mode of obtaining information.?“When a Rebel was captured, his furlough or pass was taken from him, and also his outer garments. A soldier was then found, who resembled him in size, age, and general appearance. The Rebel’s uniform, from hat to boots, was put upon this man, who assumed the name of the prisoner, and the Federal left the camp, a soldier of the Confederacy…. These Jessie Scouts generally preceded the advance of the army, and they frequently picked up a great many prisoners, without creating any alarm. I made the acquaintance of many of them, and found them bold, dashing, reckless, good fellows. I met Major Young, Sheridan’s chief of scouts, and found him eminently fitted for outpost duty and border warfare.”-John Opie, 1899
The Rosamond family fought alongside the radical ‘Swamp Fox’ Francis Marion, in our Revolutionary War. John Fremont tops the list of Radical Republicans who did not take to Lincoln, and was the real force behind freeing slaves in the Land of the Free. Senator Thomas Hart Benton freed the Oregon Territory from British Rule. The settlers Benton encouraged to go West, carried with them the history of Francis Marion who drove the British out of the Northwest. There is a county named after Benton.
With the marriage of Christine Rosamond Presco, to Garth Benton, there are genealogical ties to Oregon’s core history. Add to this the woolen mill in Salem, then one beholds the birth of the Free Enterprise System in the West where Fremont and the Radical Republicans prepared a way for Free Blacks.
When you add the fact Anthony Hodges located, and did a genealogy of my ancestors in the South who fought for the Confederacy, then one beholds the core radical revolution and cultural battle that rages in our Democracy.
Above is a Kettle Creek monument showing that Samuel Roseman was an officer.
That he again volunteered under Col. Pickens Capt. Jones commanding the company with Lieut. Roseman that they set out after a set of Tories under a Col. Boyd, that they crossed.
Bobbie G. Moss lists this man as Samuel Rosamond in his SC Roster.
Below is a link to a digitized copy of the Francis Marion book we discussed this afternoon:
Link to citation of the Weems-Hory book dated 1835: http://www.worldcat.org/title/life-of-gen-francis-marion-a-celebrated-partisan-officer-in-the-revolutionary-war-against-the-british-and-tories-in-south-carolina-and-georgia/oclc/733089371&referer=brief_results
Link to citation in Library of congress of an 1818 edition: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=5&ti=1,5&Search_Arg=The%20life%20of%20general%20francis%20marion&Search_Code=GKEY^*&CNT=100&type=quick&PID=YotPmg4G1ZidcNU37hXg3Ycmt5U7&SEQ=20130709162136&SID=1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radical Republicans (disambiguation).
The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party from about 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves “radicals” and were opposed during the war by moderates and conservative factions led by Abraham Lincoln and after the war by “conservatives” (in the South) and “liberals” (in the North). Radicals strongly opposed slavery during the war and after the war distrusted ex-Confederates, demanding harsh policies for the former rebels, and emphasizing civil rights and voting rights for freedmen (recently-freed slaves).
During the war, Radical Republicans often opposed Lincoln in terms of selection of generals (especially his choice of Democrat George B. McClellan for top command) and his efforts to bring states back into the Union. The Radicals passed their own reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect when he was assassinated in 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederates. They bitterly fought President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, however they were one vote short. The Radicals were vigorously opposed by the Democratic Party and often by moderate and Liberal Republicans as well.
The Radical coalition
The term “radical” was in common use in the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War, referring not to abolitionists but to Northern politicians strongly opposed to the Slave Power. Many, perhaps a majority, had been Whigs, such as William Seward, a leading presidential contender in 1860 and Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, the leading radical newspaper. There was movement in both directions: some of the pre-war radicals (such as Seward) became more conservative during the war, while some prewar moderates became Radicals. Some wartime radicals had been conservative Democrats before the war, often taking proslavery positions. They included John A. Logan of Illinois, Edwin Stanton of Ohio, Ben Butler of Massachusetts, Ulysses S. Grant of Illinois, and Vice President Andrew Johnson (Johnson broke with the Radicals after he became president.)
The Radicals were never formally organized, and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates, and War Democrats; while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became president in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. Johnson, however, was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, most of them ex-radicals, ran a presidential campaign, and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt, and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South. They were overwhelmingly defeated and collapsed as a movement.
On issues not concerned with the Slave Power, the destruction of the Confederacy, the eradication of slavery and the rights of the Freedmen, Radicals took positions all over the political map. For example ex-Whigs generally supported high tariffs, and ex-Democrats generally oppose them. Some men were for hard money and no inflation, and others were for soft money and inflation. The argument, common in the 1930s, that the radicals were primarily motivated by a desire to selfishly promote Northeastern business interests, has seldom been argued by historians for a half-century. On foreign policy issues, the Radicals and moderates generally did not take distinctive positions.
Henry Jarvis Raymond
After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality. Lincoln put all factions in his cabinet, including Radicals like Salmon P. Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), whom he later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, James Speed (Attorney General) and Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War). Lincoln appointed many Radical Republicans, such as journalist James Shepherd Pike, to key diplomatic positions. Angry with Lincoln, in 1864 some Radicals briefly formed a political party called the Radical Democracy Party with John C. Frémont as their candidate for president, until Frémont withdrew.
An important Republican opponent of the Radical Republicans was Henry Jarvis Raymond. Raymond was both editor of the New York Times and also a chairman of the Republican National Committee. In Congress the most influential Radical Republicans were U.S. Senator Charles Sumner and U.S. Representative Thaddeus Stevens. They led the call for a war that would end slavery.
The Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln’s terms for reuniting the United States during Reconstruction, which began in 1863, which they viewed as too lenient. They proposed an “ironclad oath” that would prevent anyone who supported the Confederacy from voting in Southern elections; Lincoln blocked it. Radicals passed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864; Lincoln vetoed it. The Radicals demanded a more aggressive prosecution of the war, a faster end to slavery and total destruction of the Confederacy. After the war the Radicals controlled the Joint Committee on Reconstruction.
After the assassination of Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson became president. Although he appeared at first to be a Radical, he broke with them, and the Radicals and Johnson became embroiled in a bitter struggle. Johnson proved a poor politician and his allies lost heavily in the 1866 elections in the North. The Radicals now had full control of Congress and could override Johnson’s vetoes.
Control of Congress
After the 1866 elections, the Radicals generally controlled Congress. Johnson vetoed 21 bills passed by Congress during his term, but the Radicals overrode 15 of them, including the Reconstruction Acts and Force Acts, which rewrote the election laws for the South and allowed blacks to vote, while prohibiting most leading whites from holding office, if they had supported the Confederacy. As a result of 1867-68 elections, the newly empowered freedmen, in coalition with carpetbaggers (Northerners who had recently moved south) and Scalawags (white Southerners who supported Reconstruction), set up Republican governments in 10 Southern states (all but Virginia). They were supported by the Radicals in Washington who sent in the Army to support the new state governments.
The Radical plan was to remove Johnson from office, but the first effort at impeachment went nowhere. After Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him; he escaped removal from office by the Senate by a single vote in 1868, but had lost most of his power.
General Ulysses S. Grant in 1865-68 was in charge of the Army under President Johnson, but Grant generally enforced the Radical agenda. The leading Radicals in Congress were Thaddeus Stevens in the House, and Charles Sumner in the Senate. Grant was elected as a Republican in 1868; after the election he generally sided with the Radicals on Reconstruction policies and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 into law.
The Republicans split in 1872 over Grant’s reelection, with the Liberal Republicans, including Sumner, opposing Grant with a new third party. The Liberals lost badly, but the economy then went into a depression in 1873 and in 1874 the Democrats swept back into power and ended the reign of the Radicals.
The Radicals tried to protect the new coalition, but one by one the Southern states voted the Republicans out of power until in 1876 only three were left (Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina), where the Army still protected them. The 1876 presidential election was so close it was decided in those three states, despite massive fraud and illegalities on both sides. The Compromise of 1877 called for the election of a Republican as president, and his withdrawal of the troops. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew the troops; the Republican state regimes immediately collapsed.
Reconstruction of the South
During Reconstruction, Radical Republicans increasingly took control, led by Sumner and Stevens. They demanded harsher measures in the South, and more protection for the Freedmen, and more guarantees that the Confederate nationalism was totally eliminated. Following Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, Andrew Johnson, a former War Democrat, became President.
The Radicals at first admired Johnson’s hard-line talk. When they discovered his ambivalence on key issues by his veto of Civil Rights Act of 1866, they overrode his veto. This was the first time that Congress had overridden a President on an important bill. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made African Americans United States citizens and forbade discrimination against them. It was to be enforced in Federal courts. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution of 1868, (with its Equal Protection Clause) was the work of a coalition formed of both moderate and Radical Republicans.
By 1866 the Radical Republicans supported federal civil rights for Freedmen, which Johnson opposed. By 1867 they defined terms for suffrage for freed slaves and limited early suffrage for many ex-Confederates. While Johnson opposed the Radical Republicans on some issues, the decisive Congressional elections of 1866 gave the radicals enough votes to enact their legislation over Johnson’s vetoes. Through elections in the South, ex-Confederate officeholders were gradually replaced with a coalition of Freedmen, southern whites (called Scalawags), and northerners who had resettled in the South (called Carpetbaggers). The Radical Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in the House but failed by one vote in the Senate to remove him from office.
Grant’s last outrage in Louisiana
in Frank Leslie’s illustrated newspaper. With nation tired of Reconstruction, Grant remained the lone President protecting African American civil rights.
January 23, 1875
The Radical Republicans led the Reconstruction of the South. All Republican factions supported Ulysses S. Grant for president in 1868. Once in office, Grant forced Sumner out of the party. Grant used Federal power to try to break up the Ku Klux Klan organization. Insurgents, however, and community riots continued harassment and violence against African Americans and their allies into the early 20th century. By 1872 the Liberal Republicans thought that Reconstruction had succeeded and should end. Many moderates joined their cause as well as Radical Republican leader Charles Sumner. They lost as Grant was easily reelected.
In state after state in the south, the Redeemers movement seized control from the Republicans, until only three Republican states were left in 1876: South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. Republican Presidential candidate Rutherford B. Hayes announced that he favored restoring “home rule” in these states, provided they promised to respect the rights of the freedmen. When Hayes became president in 1877 he ordered the removal of federal troops and Redeemers took over in these states as well.
Liberal Republicans (in 1872) and Democrats argued the Radical Republicans were corrupt by the acts of accepting bribes (notably during the Grant Administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, restoring their right to vote and hold public office. Foner’s history of Reconstruction pointed out that sometimes the financial chicanery was as much a question of extortion as bribes. By 1872 the Radicals were increasingly splintered; in the Congressional elections of 1874 the anti-Radical Democrats took control of Congress. Many former radicals joined the “Stalwart” faction of the GOP, while many opponents joined the “Half-Breeds”, but they differed primarily on patronage rather than policy.
In the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction, new battles took place over the construction of memory and the meaning of historical events. The earliest historians to study Reconstruction and the Radical Republican participation in it were members of the Dunning School led by William Archibald Dunning and John W. Burgess. The Dunning School, based at Columbia University in the early 20th century, saw the Radicals as motivated by a lust for power at the expense of national reconciliation and an irrational hatred of the Confederacy. According to Dunning School historians, the Radical Republicans reversed the gains Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had made in reintegrating the South, established corrupt shadow governments made up of Northern carpetbaggers and Southern scalawags in the former Confederate states, and, to increase their support base, foisted political rights on the freed slaves that they were unprepared or incapable of utilizing. For the Dunning School, the Radical Republicans made Reconstruction a dark age that only ended when Southern whites rose up and reestablished a “home rule” free of Northern, Republican, and black influence. Despite efforts by some historians such as W. E. B. Du Bois to provide the perspective of the freedmen, the Dunning School’s negative view of Reconstruction and opposition to voting rights for African Americans was influential in textbooks for years. In the 1930s, attempts by leftist historians to reevaluate the era in an economic light emphasized class conflict. They were also hostile towards the Radicals, casting them as economic opportunists who sought to dominate the South by thrusting northern capitalism upon it.
The role of Radical Republicans in creating public school systems, charitable institutions and other social infrastructure in the South was downplayed by the Dunning School of historians. Since the 1950s the impact of the moral crusade of the Civil Rights movement, as well as the “Black Power” movement, led historians to reevaluate the role of Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. Their reputation improved. These historians, sometimes referred to as neoabolitionist because they reflected and admired the values of the abolitionists of the 19th century, argued that the Radical Republicans’ advancement of civil rights and suffrage for African Americans following emancipation was more significant than the financial corruption which took place. They also pointed to the African Americans’ central, active roles in reaching toward education (both individually and by creating public school systems) and their desire to acquire land as a means of self-support.
Historians have long puzzled over why most Republicans—even extreme abolitionists—gradually lost interest in the fate of the Freedmen after 1868. Richardson (2004) argues that Northern Republicans came to see most blacks as potentially dangerous to the economy because they might prove to be labor radicals in the tradition of the 1870 Paris Commune, or the labor radicals of the violent American strikes in the 1870s. Meanwhile it became clear to Northerners that the white South was not bent on revenge or the restoration of the Confederacy. Most of the Republicans who felt this way became opponents of Grant and entered the Liberal Republican camp in 1872.
Leading Radical Republicans
John C. Frémont: the 1856 U.S. presidential candidate of the Radical Republicans.
John Bingham: U.S. Representative from Ohio and principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
William Gannaway Brownlow: publisher of the Knoxville Whig; Tennessee Governor; U.S. Senator
Benjamin Butler: Massachusetts politician-soldier; hated by rebels for restoring control in New Orleans.
Zachariah Chandler: U.S. Senator from Michigan and Secretary of the Interior under Ulysses S. Grant.
Salmon P. Chase: U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Lincoln; Supreme Court chief justice; sought 1868 Democratic nomination as moderate.
Henry Winter Davis: U.S. Representative from Maryland.
Friedrich Hecker: leader of the German-American Forty-Eighters
James A. Garfield: U.S. House of Representatives leader; less radical than others; U.S. President 1881.
Hannibal Hamlin: Maine politician; Vice President during Lincoln’s first term.
William D. Kelley: U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania.
James H. Lane: U.S. Senator from Kansas, leader of the Jayhawkers abolitionist movement.
Thaddeus Stevens: Radical leader in the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.
Charles Sumner: U.S. Senator from Massachusetts; dominant Radical leader in Senate; specialist in foreign affairs; broke with Grant in 1872
Benjamin Wade: U.S. Senator from Ohio; he was next in line to become President if Johnson was removed
Henry Wilson: Massachusetts leader; Vice President under Grant
Ulysses S. Grant: President of the United States, signed Enforcement Acts and Civil Rights Act of 1875; General of the Army of the United States, supported Radical Reconstruction and civil rights for African Americans.