Is the ‘QAnon Shaman’ From the MAGA Capitol Riot Covered in Neo-Nazi Imagery?
Runes and other Pagan symbols aren’t inherently racist — but they’ve long been coopted by white supremacists
“While for many simply packing the court with more left-wing judges was the answer before the recent decisions, a new survey found support for killing the court and electing judges and even allowing the United Nations to have the final say.”
It is obvious to me why Ed Meese would become a Constitutional Lawyer, it was written by rich white slave holders who did not want women to have the vote. Not able to make a GOOD CASE FOR the Constitution being divinely dictated to mortals…..rich, white fake patriot people drape themselves in the American flag – AND OUR MILITARY – then go after LGBTQ folks – because for some reason this makes it all clear – IF YOU ARE ON GOD’S SIDE – OR NOT! This is to say if you wear a crucified Lesbian on a cross WITH A STAKE IN HER HEART then you are a Pure Loyalist Believer and Captain In The Army of God! Who subscribes to this DISGUSTING DECLARATION the most? Putin and Kirill, the alleged mortal enemy of Ed Meese, and Clarence Thomas. WRONG! These are boosom buddies in what can be called The Second Salem Witch Hunt. My 9th. Puritan grandfather in in The Scarlet Letter, depicted as an OPPRESSOR OF WOMAN.
While this PURE INSANITY is going on, descendants of Black Slave, who gather in the Democratic Party – ARE FED UP – for it is clear they are THE TRUE VICTIMS OF A BAD AMERICA! Screw the Constitution. Ex-President, Donald Trump, and all THE SIGNERS OF THAT SATANIC LETTER – give testimony Democracy is Dead! What most Black Voters in Americ understand, is IF THE WHITE MAN CAN DENY YOU YOUR FAIR DAY IN COURT – THEY WILL – OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Why then should they allow the pendulum to swing the other way, some more, and let the Republicans take another shot at completely destroying United State Justice – when they are rigging the elections – making it even hard for non-Republicans to vote. Christian leader Franklin Graham appears to like the idea of Donald and his Party of Jesus – not turning over the reigns of power – ever again!
It should be evident to anyone who reads the Bible, that the Republican Party of Lawmakers – is the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers – THE REAL ENEMIES OF JESUS! If any citizens of this Democracy own religious permission to make a flag from Jesus’ Robe – and ride behind it towards the Army of Satan – it is the descendants of American Slaves – AND THEIR THINK TANKS KNOW IT! This is why THEY CAPTURED JESUS when Regan swore an oath of office.
For the last 24 hours I have been composing a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, and Adam Shiff about the impression the Signers give, is that there is a MILITARY TRIBUNAL going on, and they are prepared TO ACT of the Jan 6th. Committee – DIGS TOO DEEP! I have pointed out Witch Conelly, but, Witch Duff is going to get my full attention, because JESSIE JANE DUFF puts Trump’s severed head on the body of Mel Gibson, who played a Patriot based upon Francis Marion who my grandfather and his brother fought under. My Rosamond kin consider Francis a member of the family, for he had no children. Francis Marion Rosamond is in my family tree.
I would like the committees permission to be the Gallows Man who pulls a lever, or, wields a big axe – and lops off the shrunken head of that treacherous freak, for, Jessie Jane Duff EMPLOYS photographs of American Soldiers in Vietnam – to highly suggest Jesus has chosen this Ex-Marin Gunnery Seargent, to lead the Jessie Jesus Brigade. How about a fake firing squad of real Patriots, putting an end to the evil make believe life of the IMPOSTER….FRANCIS DONALD MARION! In no way am I suggesting anyone target Trump, or anyone who signed that evil letter. But, members of the committee have gotten death threats. Look at THE WEAPON Donald Marion carried in his hand. As an ratist, I get all the evil messages in this war propaganda. Alas, Donld Trump joins his beloved Insurrectionist at the Capitol with SPEAR IN HAND!
I gave birth to Miriam Starfish Christling in 2019. She is a Biblical Scholar like her parents. I found an image for MY CREATION, a model who is holding…..A SPEAR IN HER HAND? Did Starfish prepere the way for Jacob? How about a Peaceful Bible Thumping Contest?
Many Hippies and Blacks were DRAFTED and sent to Vietnam. What role did Ed Meese play. Meese was up to his mouse ears in pardons for right-wing radicals employing our military and taxes in selling arms to Iranian Terrorists. Don’t go there…….you say?
WATCH THIS SPACE
Samuel Roseman was a member of the South Carolina Militia and a Scout for Francis Marion the “Swamp Fox” who Mel Gibson’s character was based on in the movie `The Patriot’. Samuel was the brother of my great, great, great grandfather, James Rosamond, who was also in the South Carolina Militia, and more then likely fought alongside his brother and Francis Marion. There may be a chance my grandfather, Frank Wesley Rosamond was named after Francis, as were other Rosamonds
“Marion Francis “Frank” ROSAMOND”
Because of this new uncovered history, I find my grandfather’s claim, that his mother, Ida Rose, is the offspring of Sir Issac Hull, a Captain of the U.S.S. Constitution to be very credible. It is alleged
Captain Hull had no children, but, he was a sailor and visited many ports.
“Samuel enlisted in the militia around 1776-77 and served as a Lieutenant under Captain Adam Crain Jones and Colonel Robert Anderson (for whom Anderson County, SC was named.) In 1782 he was appointed Captain and served at the Siege of Ninety-Six and the Battle of Kettle Creek in Wilkes County, GA on Feb. 14, 1779 during the Revolutionary War. This battle enabled the revolutionists to halt the British advance in Georgia after the capture of Savannah. According
to Samuel’s great-grandson James Oliver Rosamond, Samuel served as a scout and spy under the direction of Colonel Francis Mariion, the “Swamp Fox”.
“Samuel and James ROSAMOND both served in the SC militia during the Revolution. Samuel was a lieutenant under Adam Crain Jones and as a captain under Colonel Anderson.”
James Rosamond M. Born ca 1754 in Augusta County, Virginia. James died in Abbeville District, SC bef 10 Jul 1806, he was 52. Occupation: Farmer.
James served in the Revolutionary War in the Ninety-Six District before and after the fall of Charleston. The Siege of Charleston occurrend in 1790 by the British Army led by Sir Henry Clinton. James furnished 150 lbs. of pork to the militia in 1782. He obtained land grants as a result of his service in the war. An abstract of his service in the Revolutionary War is on file at the Historical Commission in South Carolina.
My father-in-law is still alive. Robert Miles is six months younger than me. When he went to Vietnam, he made my mother promise she would marry him – if he survived. Robby was a Screaming Eagle, who served on the 101 Airborne. He got caught smoking pot too many times and they put him in a all black unit – of brother potheads – who understood they were doomed. The brass wanted them dead. They stopped taking orders. Robby organized night raids. They came back to camp with wearing a neckless of Vietcong ears which they threw down at the entrance to the officers tent. They smoked some dope, ate some food, and got a little shut-eye. No one dare tell them what to do. This is the story and movie, you will never see.
I got a 4F, and did not serve. I took the Boston Mafia to court for nine months, and won. My attorney introduced me to the Mayor of Boston. There was an attempt on my life. These cowards killed a black puppy. Two months later, I save a woman and her cat from a warlock. That cat would walk with us to the park. Another cat I owned in Sacramento would walk with me. I got a cat now, that takes walks with me.
When my black radical friends wanted to get guns and fight for our building, I made a good case, and talked them out of it. There was one thing that made these people strong, the Promise of Freedom. A good job and money, is way down on the list. After Freedom, you find this word………….
I honor all the Brothers who lay down their life for their country, and, who put themselves in harms way so their brother will survive.
I honor my mother, Rosemary, who served in the WAVES spying on the Russians.
CONSERVATIVE LEADERS: REMOVE CHENEY AND KINZINGER FROM HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE
December 15, 2021
December 15, 2021
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader and Member (CA-23)
U.S. House of Representatives
2468 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader McCarthy,
The undersigned conservatives ask that the House Republican Conference act immediately to remove both Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) from the Republican conference due to their egregious actions as part of the House of Representative’s January 6th Select Committee.
As you are aware, this committee has no formal representation from Republicans. Both Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger serve at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). As part of Pelosi’s team, Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger have deliberately sought to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans, and those of private citizens, with improperly issued subpoenas and other investigatory tactics designed not to pursue any valid legislative end, but merely to exploit for the sake of political harassment and demagoguery.
The actions of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger on behalf of House Democrats have given supposedly bipartisan justification to an overtly partisan political persecution that brings disrespect to our country’s rule of law, legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong, and which demeans the standing of the House.
As duly elected representatives, Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger are free to serve in the House, but they should no longer do so with the privileges granted to members of the House Republican Conference. They should no longer be given access to the benefits of a conference they actively seek to undermine.
We ask that the GOP conference meet immediately to vote on stripping Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger from their membership in the GOP conference. We further inform you that conservative leaders are launching a nationwide movement to add citizens’ voices to this effort.
|The Honorable Edwin Meese III|
President Ronald Reagan (1985-1988)
|The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell|
Chairman, Conservative Action Project (CAP)
Chairman, Constitutional Congress, Inc.
|The Honorable Bob McEwen (R-OH)|
U.S. House Committee on Rules
|The Honorable Matt Schlapp|
American Conservative Union (ACU)
|The Honorable Jim DeMint|
Chairman, Conservative Partnership Institute
Member, US Senate (SC 2005-2013)
Vice Chairman, Conservative Action Project
President & CEO, Conservative Partnership Institute
|Jenny Beth Martin|
Tea Party Patriots Citizen Fund
|The Honorable Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II|
Election Transparency Initiative
|David N. Bossie|
|The Honorable Tony Perkins|
Family Research Council
|The Honorable David McIntosh|
Club for Growth
|Scott T. Parkinson|
VP for Government Affairs
Club for Growth
|Rachel A. Bovard|
Senior Director of Policy
Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
|The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.|
Chief Domestic Advisor
President Ronald Reagan (1987-1988)
|L. Brent Bozell III|
Founder and President
Media Research Center
|Alfred S. Regnery|
Republic Book Publishers
|Lisa B. Nelson||Cleta Mitchell, Esq.|
Executive Vice President
Founder and President
American Principles Project
|William L. Walton|
The Bill Walton Show
Resolute Protector Foundation
|The Honorable Brooke Rollins|
President and CEO
America First Policy Institute (AFPI)
|The Honorable Russ Vought|
Office of Management and Budget (2020-2021)
Chief Operating Officer
Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
ACRU Action Fund
|The Honorable Gary L. Bauer|
|The Honorable Briscoe Cain|
Texas House of Representatives
Center for Military Readiness
|Alan M. Gottlieb|
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
|Gary A. Hofmeister|
|The Honorable George K. Rasley Jr.|
|H. Preston Hawkins|
The Association for Community Education, Inc.
Americans for Limited Government
Council for National Policy
|Robert K. Fischer|
Conservatives of Faith
Washington Marketing Group
Universal Minerals Group
|Richard D Hayes|
Hayes, Berry, White & Vanzant, LLP
|Joan Holt Lindsey|
|Allen J. Hebert|
American-Chinese Fellowship of Houston
|The Honorable Mary Vought|
Senate Conservatives Fund
Lopez Liberty LLC
Board of Directors
Americans for Limited Government
|Dr. Allen Unruh|
National Abstinence Clearinghouse
Legal Immigrants for America
|The Honorable Morton C. Blackwell|
The Leadership Institute
|Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Ret.)|
Executive Vice President
Family Research Council
Zehm & Associates
|Dr. Richard Rounsavelle|
|Jenna L. Ellis, Esq.|
Election Integrity Alliance
Retired Political Volunteer
Board Member, Hoover Institution
|Jessie Jane Duff|
Gunnery Sergeant, US Marine Corps (ret)
Ambassador, America First Policy Institute (AFPI)
|Ralph A. Rebandt II|
Ralph Rebandt for Governor
|The Honorable Peter J. Thomas|
Noah Webster Educational Foundation
Director of Governmental Affairs
American Family Association
Former Chairman and Commissioner
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comn.
|The Honorable Mike Hill|
Florida State Representative
All organizations listed for IDENTIFICATION purposes only.
Signatures updated: 12/21/21.
Democrats would abolish Supreme Court, elect judges, let United Nations decide
Paul Bedard – 1h ago
The recent decisions by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority on abortion and guns appears to have pushed Democrats deeper into seeking radical changes that would shift the court back into liberal hands.
© Provided by Washington ExaminerDemocrats would abolish Supreme Court, elect judges, let United Nations decide
While for many simply packing the court with more left-wing judges was the answer before the recent decisions, a new survey found support for killing the court and electing judges and even allowing the United Nations to have the final say.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey sponsored by the Heartland Institute, for example, found that 39% of Democrats would let the U.N. reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions it viewed as human rights violations. The reversal of Roe vs. Wade decision could fall into that category.
Worse, a majority — 53% — of Democrats would support legislation to “abolish” the court and turn it into an elected chamber with judges picked on ballots. Just 21% of Republicans agree with that proposal.
And 64% of Democrats support packing the court with 13 judges, up from the current nine. Just 19% of Republicans agreed.
Driving the liberal anger, according to the survey, is a feeling among Democrats that the Supreme Court is “racist” and “sexist,” despite having two blacks and four women sitting on it, all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett being liberals.
In the survey, 56% of Democrats said the court is a “fundamentally racist” institution. And 67% said it is a “fundamentally sexist” institution.
All that said, it is no surprise that Democrats generally don’t like the court. According to Rasmussen’s preview of its survey being released later today, “In the wake a recent string of decisions strengthening the Second Amendment, reining in the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the constitutional right to an abortion, however, Democratic voters mostly disapprove of the Supreme Court. Only 33% of Democrats view the court favorably, while 63% have an unfavorable opinion of the court, including 40% of Democrats who have a Very Unfavorable view of the Supreme Court.”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
James Hopkinson’s Plantation. Group going to field. African American men, women and children stand around and in a horse-drawn cart. A white man who could be James Hopkinson stands next to them. Edisto Island, South Carolina. – 1862-1863 Library of Congress
The U.S. Constitution opens with a message of inclusivity, establishing “justice” and ensuring “domestic tranquility” for the people. However, it’s what the famous preamble—and, indeed, the rest of the document—doesn’t address that’s more telling. The Constitution’s authors leave out their vital distinction between person and property, and in doing so, they ultimately protect one of history’s most oppressive institutions.
The absence of slavery in the Constitution is one of the great paradoxes of our Founding Era. The framers were revolutionary thinkers who created what would become the first successfully functioning government by the people. Their ideas of fairness, justice, and individual rights are what many world leaders emulate today. Why, then, did so many brilliant minds pledge to be champions of individual rights on one hand, then, on another, allow human beings to be reduced to chattel?
We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.
JAMES MADISON (CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, JUNE 6, 1787)
The answer lies in the idea of compromise: the founders compromised their morals (many were recorded as being opposed to slavery), and power (in some cases, states bowed to slaveholding counterparts in order to ensure the Constitution would be ratified), in the name of economics. Slavery, when all was said and done, was both profitable and convenient for many white Americans—and not just in the South.
American Slavery and the Rise of Profitable Racism
Colloquially, the term “slavery” conjures images of one race enslaving another. In fact, white colonists bought and sold the labor of both white and black servants in the 17th-century Americas. Race-based slavery is a younger phenomenon with a long-lasting legacy that America grapples with today.
“Landing Negroes at Jamestown from Dutch man-of-war, 1619.” Reproduction of painting. From the National Archives and Records Administration Prints and Photographs Division: Illus. in Harper’s Monthly Mag., v. 102, 1901 Jan., p. 172.
As lifelong bondage of enslaved African Americans became more financially viable, the indentured servitude of whites (their terms only lasted five to seven years), was phased out. The system proved itself so lucrative that law and legal precedent began to leave future governments leeway for prioritizing economy over morality.
Morality did nag at the consciences of some white Americans—the Enlightenment philosophies of natural rights and growing religious convictions were a nuisance for those profiting from the institution of slavery. The contradiction couldn’t be denied: philosophies that recognized the rights of the individual were juxtaposed against the fact that America had become a place where an entire subset of people were commoditized and dehumanized.
The answer was pretty simple: clarify who gets to be a person and who doesn’t. Fabricating a subservient order for those with darker skin allowed our founding generation (and generations after) to define “all men” and “the people” as “white men.” As a result, they guaranteed white men the rights and liberties promised by the Constitution while preserving a thriving economy based on racial oppression.
Not everyone agreed with this caste system. Colonial independence was almost underway when abolitionist groups started to point out the moral contradictions of slavery. As America spread into new territories, regional blocs began to form on both sides of the issue. The North was making progress on the abolition front, and state laws began to change regarding slavery. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, with Pennsylvania following suit in 1780, and other states coming up close behind. Even Virginia made it legal in 1782 for slaveholders to manumit their own slaves without first obtaining permission from the state. But further South, where enslaved African Americans made up a vast workforce, the ruling whites insisted on racial hierarchy.
Constitutional Compromises on Slavery Set Tone for the Future
The framers went to great lengths to avoid overtly mentioning “slavery” or “slave.” In 1840, more than 50 years after the Constitution was ratified, John Quincy Adams would refer to this careful omission as ” the fig-leaves under which the parts of the body politic are decently concealed.”
Though there were significant pro-slavery voices, there were also forward-thinking framers, like Oliver Ellsworth, a Senator from Connecticut, who was optimistic that “slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country.” Though some thought the Constitution’s power to prohibit the slave trade would lay “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country,” as James Wilson said in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in 1787, many weren’t keen on having their names attached to a document that mentioned slavery outright.
Three clauses relating to slavery did make it into the final draft of the Constitution, all after varied amounts of debate and compromise during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Article I, Sec. II, Paragraph III: The Three-Fifths Clause (1787)
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.
What it says: When a state’s population is counted for purposes of representation in government , and for direct taxation , the enslaved population will be counted as three-fifths of its overall number. Untaxed Native Americans would not figure into this number.
What it means: Slaveholding states get to count their slaves to boost their population numbers. This affects electors and representation in Congress, and therefore will have more impact on future legislation, the election of the president, and, by extension, Supreme Court appointments. Slaveholding states will also, in theory, have to ante up more direct tax for this privilege.
It’s a common misconception that this clause represents the amount of humanity the framers were willing to assign to African Americans. In fact, the South was pushing for their enslaved individuals to be counted fully, so as to have more impact in Congress.
What happened as a result: States with large slave populations ended up with more power both in Congress and in the Supreme Court, which undercut the power of abolition states. Historians differ as to whether or not the South would have made good on their promise to refuse to join the union without the inclusion of this clause. If it had, would the United States have been able to survive without it?
The federal tax benefits that the Three-Fifths Clause was supposed to have generated never came to fruition—the Southern-led government worked out a tariff-based tax system instead of a direct (“head”) tax.
Article I, Section IX, Clause I: The Importation Clause (1787)
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
What it says: If states want to import slaves internationally, the federal government won’t interfere for at least another 20 years. However, this importation will be taxed at a rate of no more than $10 per slave.
What it means: The framers were aware that the international slave trade would eventually be abolished, if for no other reason than the economy would require it, in order to increase demand of domestic trade. The states received 20 years of autonomy to import slaves as they saw fit before Congress could (and did) abolish the international trade.
This is more complicated than a clear-cut morality issue. Virginia pushed hard to abolish the international slave trade because it had the largest enslaved population of any state, and the value of their domestic trade was suffering as the market was being flooded by the arrival of new enslaved Africans. Massachusetts, through which many slaves were distributed, was profiting from the international trade and so supported the grace period. The Importation Clause was passed, despite Virginia’s efforts, with the 20-year compromise in place.
What happened as a result: The $10 tax on each head was never collected. Some argued that the federal government would be removing that fragile “fig leaf” if they acknowledged slaves as property, much less made money off of the slave trade by collecting the tax. Others saw the tax as anti-slavery because it could be construed as penalizing importation. All in all, the federal government avoided the issue until there was no longer an international slave trade.
By 1809, when the international trade was officially abolished, all of the states had already banned it on their own.
Article IV, Sec. II, Clause III: The Fugitive Slave Clause (1787)
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
What it says: If an enslaved person crosses state lines into a state where slavery has been abolished, citizens of that state are obligated to return the slave to their owner.
What it means: States who abolish slavery have to respect the fact that other states have not. This puts legal slavery as the default scenario, and abolition as the outlier.
What happened as a result: At the time, only two states—Massachusetts and Vermont—had banned slavery. The Fugitive Slave Clause, then, passed with little debate.
Individual states reacted swiftly. Pennsylvania, for example, passed laws making it more difficult for slaveholders to enforce the law, requiring a certificate to prove ownership of the individual in question, and prohibiting the use of force. The Supreme Court responded with their ruling in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, making it easier for the Fugitive Slave Clause to be enforced. A century of workarounds by more and more states, and the federal government’s tightening responses, eventually erupted into the Civil War.
This broadside publicizes the arrest of the fugitive slave Anthony Burns, who escaped from Richmond, Virginia and made his way to Boston where, on May 24th, 1854, he was arrested. While he was awaiting trial for extradition to Virginia, a large crowd of abolitionists and anti-slavery sympathizers stormed the jail in which he was held in an attempt to free him. Federal troops were eventually sent to Boston to support the extradition, and Burns was ultimately returned to Virginia. He was later ransomed from slavery, eventually obtaining an education at Oberlin College and becoming a Baptist minister. Boston Public Library.
Many scholars agree that, among all three of the slavery clauses in the Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Clause was the most abhorrent. It implicates and involves the federal government and its officers in the active protection of people as property.
Slavery’s Legacies Continue Through Reconstruction and Civil Rights
Fast forward to the mid-19th Century, and we see what some of the founders predicted: a country no longer able to ignore the moral bankruptcy of slavery despite its continued profitability. As new states enter the union as either slaveholding or free states, the conflict between the two blocs intensifies. Federal law favors the South, due to increased representation in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Act is tightened for Northern states in exchange for California’s admission as a free state.
All boils over in 1860 when South Carolina secedes, followed quickly by more Southern states, and the Civil War begins. On New Year’s Day, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issues an executive order changing the status of all slaves in the Southern territory to “free.” On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrenders to General Ulysses S. Grant, and the South becomes part of the United States once again.
Lawmakers turned back to the Constitution for clarification, drafting and approving three “Reconstruction amendments,” XIII, XIV, and XV. It’s important to note that while these amendments became law in the five years following the Civil War, the Constitution at this time was still outpacing culture. Today, many will argue that culture is still struggling to catch up.
13th Amendment: December 1865, officially abolished slavery in all states.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What it means: Race-based slavery is illegal unless the minority is found guilty of a crime. The inclusion of “except” laid the foundation for a deeply entrenched system of African American incarceration, and other systemic, long-standing, racially biased policies.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was superseded by the 13th Amendment. By abolishing slavery, the Fugitive Slave Clause had no purpose.
14th Amendment: July 1868, guaranteed the same rights to all male citizens and counted every citizen as one when determining representation in Congress.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
What it means: All states must accept every human born or naturalized in their state as a full citizen of both the U.S. and that state. That is, the definition of African American as a commodity is no longer legal.
The second section eliminates the Three-Fifths Clause and establishes a state’s population as consisting of all (male) citizens over 21, unless they’ve taken part in a rebellion or have committed a crime (as with the 13th, the definition and extent of “crime” is undetermined and dangerously subjective).
15th Amendment: February 1870, made it illegal to deprive any eligible citizen (already established as a male over the age of 21) the right to vote, regardless of color.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What this amendment means: States may not refuse any male over the age of 21 the right to vote. The amendment, however, doesn’t provide any protection for voters, and many states looked to covert processes, like gerrymandering, poll taxes, literacy tests, and other requirements to restrict access for black voters.
For the first time, the Constitution was directly addressing the idea of equality and finally mentions the word “slave.”
Lee, Russell, photographer. “Negro drinking at ‘Colored’ water cooler in streetcar terminal, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.” Photograph. Oklahoma City, OK. July 1939. From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
The lack of clarity around such concepts as “equal protection” left interpretation up to the states, opening the door for much of the systemic racism we are still faced with. After Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws protected segregation in Southern states. Education case law would bear the brunt of a still-divided nation attempting to address issues the Constitution’s framers never outlined explicitly.
The Constitution didn’t provide answers to these questions, but it did pose them.
Education Tests the Constitution
Slavery and its constitutional history continue to impact issues we still face today. The journey to providing an equal education for all Americans is an example of how constitutional law is interpreted by courts, who have set precedents for future generations with rulings on educational equality.
In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson made the South’s Jim Crow laws constitutional, with a seven-to-one Supreme Court ruling that a state has a right to provide separate but equal facilities for whites and African Americans, as long as it wasn’t depriving anyone of their constitutional rights.
21st-century perspective makes state-supported separation of race clearly unethical, but it was the equality piece that was controversial. “Separate but equal” never really meant “equal.” “Colored” facilities were famously inferior, and minorities had no recourse, as they were under-represented in positions of power and influence such as law enforcement, legislature, and the justice system.
Leffler, Warren K., photographer. “Integrated classroom at Anacostia High School, Washington, D.C.” Negative, film. Washington, DC. September 10, 1957. From the Library of Congress: U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection.
It took more than 60 years of African Americans suffering unfair and often hostile treatment for Brown v. Board of Education to rule in 1954 that segregation in schools is unconstitutional. Some areas of the country took drastic measures to resist the ruling, like the closing of public schools in Virginia (and other localities, like Little Rock, Arkansas), rather than integrate them. In others, white parents who weren’t willing to send their children to desegregated schools moved en masse to the suburbs, contributing to a phenomenon known as “white flight.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed school segregation for good, but in some areas, resistance continued . Many areas of the United States struggle to this day with disparities between schools in majority-white neighborhoods and schools in majority-African American neighborhoods.
Scherman, Roland, photographer. “Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. [Leaders marching from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial.]” Photograph. Washington, DC. August 1963. From the National Archives and Records Administration: Miscellaneous Subjects, Staff and Stringer Photographs, 1961 – 1974.
The Constitution leaves us unanswered questions. How do we dismantle the legacies of slavery that the framers of the Constitution allowed to be built around them? In a time when we urge our Congress to reach across the aisle and make compromise, how can we avoid the kind of moral compromises that can cause damage that takes centuries to undo?
We can see echoes of slavery in more than just education. The ripples touch voting rights, fair housing, public transportation access, public safety and incarceration, employment, predatory lending practices, and more.
Tracing slavery’s fiery path through the Constitution, its amendments, and both law and culture, is a reminder that our discussions on current constitutional issues may have similar effects in the future. Where there’s ambiguity, there’s a test to the Constitution that will shape our nation’s path forward, from gun rights to the expansion of ambiguous executive powers.
Where else do we see the Constitution lagging behind culture, and where does it come out ahead? It’s by asking these questions that we can best understand the role that the Constitution has in our lives and the lives of generations to come.
We’d like to thank Michael Higginbotham of the University of Baltimore, Nicholas Wood of Yale University, and former United States Deputy Secretary of Education and the 14th Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, Eugene Hickok, who also serves as Vice Chairman of the Montpelier Board of Directors.
Read more about the seminars and programs at the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution at James Madison’s Montpelier.
Participate in our accredited course on Slavery & The Constitution.
- James Hopkinson’s Plantation. Edisto Island, South Carolina. – 1862-1863 Library of Congress. (accessed February 28, 2017).
- “Landing Negroes at Jamestown from Dutch man-of-war, 1619.” Reproduction of painting. From the National Archives and Records Administration Prints and Photographs Division: Illus. in Harper’s Monthly Mag., v. 102, 1901 Jan., p. 172. (accessed February 28, 2017).
- A man kidnapped! Boston Public Library (accessed March 7, 2017).
- Lee, Russell, photographer. “Negro drinking at ‘Colored’ water cooler in streetcar terminal, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.” Photograph. Oklahoma City, OK. July 1939. From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. (accessed February 28, 2017).
- Leffler, Warren K., photographer. “Integrated classroom at Anacostia High School, Washington, D.C.” Negative, film. Washington, DC. September 10, 1957. From the Library of Congress: U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection. (accessed February 28, 2017).
- Scherman, Roland, photographer. “Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C.” Photograph. Washington, DC. August 1963. From the National Archives and Records Administration: Miscellaneous Subjects, St
The call for another Crusade is coming from many leaders. Pope Francis uses language that puts a Crusader Sword at the foot of President Barack Obama, as does Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba United Arab Emerate.
Above is a photo of a black man sitting at a table of European Leaders. Millions of Americans hate our President, and the truth he was born of a white woman who married a black man. Hatred of Interracial Marriage is common amongst neo-Confederates in the Red States. In this blog I identify racism as the No.1 enemy of America, and the world, now that our President is called upon to take military action against a truly evil enemy. I am going to publish a small book calling for the formation of the New Knights Templar. I will describe the true enemy of these Knights which will not be difficult. All I need do is compare ISIS to the Confederacy that employed ministers to preach the enslavement of men women and children. When other Americans did not buy the lie that Jesus was pro-slavery, disloyal Americans armed themselves and committed acts of treason and terrorism. If We the People are going to fight terrorists wherever they are found, then it stands to reason anything, or anyone, who resembles ISIS, is OUR enemy.
Patriot, Francis Marion, owned a black slave that was his good friend. Oscar Marion was honored by President Bush. My kindred fought for Francis in North and South Carolina. The Rosamond and Witherspoon family named their children after Francis for he was childless. No children for Oscar has been found. There is a genealogy for slaves with the name Marion that means “Star of the Sea”.
Francis (Frenchman) is considered the Father of Rangers, a special military force of the kind being summoned to fight ISIS. The word “lineage” is used in describing the Rangers that comes from Rangar, or Rover, and thus the roving Norseman, the Vikings.
Bernard Dramelay was a Knights Templar who was elected after Hughes de Rougemont. These Knights are kin to the family that came to own the Shroud of Turin, that has been a banner for Christians when there were no democracies in the world. Denis de Rougemont co-founded the European Union and the United Nations. Consider the halo of stars around the head of Stella Maris. What banner will the Templar Knights of Francis Marion carry into battle? The TKFM will dedicate ourselves to making sure the flag of the Confederacy is identified as a ISIS banner, and, see to it that it never again fly over this Land of the Free!
In the spirit of my Fremont and Benton kindred, who co-founded the Abolitionist Republican Party, I encourage black men and women to join the TKFM, and existing Special Forces of the United States.
Francis Marion (c. 1732 – February 27, 1795) was a military officer who served in the American Revolutionary War. Acting with Continental Army and South Carolina militia commissions, he was a persistent adversary of the British in their occupation of South Carolina in 1780 and 1781, even after the Continental Army was driven out of the state in the Battle of Camden.
Due to his irregular methods of warfare, he is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers. He was known as the Swamp Fox.
The bloodline of Hodge and Rosamond families are found at the base of South
Carolina’s history. The Hodge family also fought under Marion, as did the
Witherspoons. We shed our blood for Liberty. Our blood rises from the ground in
South Carolina. Our graves are still being found. A New South has risen. The Old
South is cut off, and withers away.
Oscar Marion was the servant of General Francis Marion (1732–1795), the legendary “Swamp Fox.” In December 2006, Oscar Marion was recognized as an “African American Patriot” in a ceremony at the U.S. Capitol, and a proclamation signed by President George W. Bush expressed the appreciation of a “grateful nation” for Oscar Marion’s “devoted and selfless consecration to the service of our country in the Armed Forces of the United States.”
It is believed that, following custom, Oscar was made to take the last name of his owner, and he was one of perhaps 200 slaves (many with the last name of Marion) who served Francis Marion. But there may have been a close personal connection between the general and his slave, as some accounts of the general comment on the constant companionship and “faithfulness” of his servant Oscar, according to genealogist Tina C. Jones, a descendant of some of Francis Marion’s slaves.
Merrill’s Marauders (named after Frank Merrill) or Unit Galahad, officially named the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), was a United States Army long range penetration special operations jungle warfare unit, which fought in the South-East Asian theatre of World War II, or China-Burma-India Theater (CBI). The unit became famous for its deep-penetration missions behind Japanese lines, often engaging Japanese forces superior in number.
The 75th Ranger Regiment is now a light infantry combat formation within the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). The six battalions of the modern Rangers have been deployed in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and saw action in several conflicts, such as those in Panama and Grenada. The Ranger Regiment traces its lineage to three of six battalions raised in WWII, and to the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional)—known as “Merrill’s Marauders”, and then reflagged as the 475th Infantry, then later as the 75th Infantry.
Hughes de Rougemont of Villersexel was a Grand Master of the Knight Templars. Who is he?
Statement of Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba On Challenging Regional Extremism
Islamic extremism is a Middle East problem but it is quickly becoming the world’s problem too. It is a transnational challenge, the most destabilizing and dangerous global force since fascism.
For certain, the United States and the West have a big interest in this battle. But no one has more at stake than the UAE and other moderate countries in the region that have rejected the regressive Islamist creed and embraced a different, forward-looking path.
Now is the time to act. The UAE is ready to join the international community in an urgent, coordinated and sustained effort to confront a threat that will, if unchecked, have global ramifications for decades to come.
Any action must begin with a clear plan for direct intervention against ISIS but must address the other dangerous extremist groups in the region. It is also critical to tackle the support networks, the entire militant ideological and financial complex that is the lifeblood of extremism.”
By this Charter, Ponce de Moysia, prior of Gigny, together with John of Chalon, count of Burgundy, soul, Lord of Coligny and of Andelot and Hugues de Rougemont, Grand Ma tre of the Temple, gave its seal authenticity to a famous donation. This was the one that Manasses of Coligny, brother of soul, made to the order of the Temple by receive Knight of the suzerainty of Montagna, Broissia, Eperigna (closed at Montfleur) and Holy Fountain (La Balme of Epy). This Charter, which also contains the name of the property, is one of the oldest written in French language. It mentions a large number of sites across the country and is of interest in more than one respect. Since this donation, the village of Montagna was nicknamed the Templar by distinction of Montagna-le-renewed, near Saint-Amour.
Excerpts from the history of the Canton of Saint-Julien sur Suran in Franche-Comté, book of Marius de VEYRE, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, Belles Lettres and Arts de Lyon (1965).
Hugues de Payens: the birth of the Templars: the memory regainedBy Thierry Leroy (Champagne historian
Humbert de Rougemont owned the Shroud of Turin
“June 1418: The widowed Margaret de Charny marries Humbert of
Villersexel, Count de la Roche, Lord of St.Hippolyte sur Doubs.”
Humbert de Villersexel is Humbert de Rougemont.
“1208 – Pons de la Roche presents to Amadeus de Tramelay, Archbishop
of Besançon, the Shroud that his son Othon de la Roche, Latin Duke
of Athens, had sent him from Constantinople.”
Aymon 2 de Rougemont was the Seigneur of Villersexel. He married
Guillemette de Ray, the daughter of Othon 2 de la Roche.
Othon 1 de la Roche (-before 1161) had a son named Pons de la Roche
the Seigneur de Ray. He first married Marguerite Tilchatel who may
be a Rougemont who came to own Til-Chatel. Guillaume, Gui, Humbert4,
Gui 2, and Thibaut 6 were Seigneurs of Til-Chatel. Othon then
married Pontia de Rougemont/de Dramelay the daughter of Thiebaud 2
de Rougemont. They has three children. Humbert, Thiebaud, and
Sibylle de la Roche. This union makes the Shroud the Rougemont
family icon, or relic.
It has long been suspected the Knights Templars came to own the
Shroud of Turin, some scholars suggesting it is the Holy Graal
itself. Here is evidence this was the case.
Jeane de Vergy, the grandniece of Othon de la Roche, son of Pons de
la Roche, presented the shroud to Amadeus de Tramelay, Archbishop of
Besancon, and Latin Duke of Athens. Tramelay is also spelled
Dramelay, as in the case of Bernard Dramelay/Tramelay, the fourth
Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Fromond Dramelay married
N.Rougemont, and from them descend the de la Roches, they the Lords
of Neufchatel. You can follow the Rougemont line to Aumiry de
Rochefoucauld who was the Grand Master of the Templars in Paris.
The fifth son of Guy II of Rougemont and Guillemette de Coublant,
was lord of Pichanges. In December 1265, having
recalled the donations made to the temple by Aimon IV and Guy II, he
gave to the Templars, with the agreement of his elder brother, Jean,
Lord of Rougemont, the right of pasturage on his lands of Pichanges
and Spoy. He died in 1271 and was buried before the altar in the
chapel of Fontenotte and conferring his Templar rank of Preceptor
Humbert of Villersexel
An article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go to: Navigation, Search
Humbert of Villersexel (1385-1437) County of la Roche, Lord of Villersexel, Maîche, ORB and Saint Hippolyte.
Lordship: the Épy Balme depended on Justice of the marquisate of Andelot. The inhabitants, freed the dead hand in 1211, should their Lord the watchtowers and guard at the castle of Andelot, maintenance of fortifications, the ride, the rights of RRR, chores, four cases of franchise cash tax, in chickens, goats, etc. They were required to follow at all times the Horn and the cry of their sire.
He had moreover a fiefdom, says the fief of Virechatel, composed of a large House, with a high tower a circular which still exists in part, land and several seigneurial rights. He was, at the time of the revolution, Mr. de Maisonforte. In 1191, Aymon, prior of Gigny, plaça part of the property of his monastery under the protection and custody of Stephen II, count of Burgundy, and her ceded, the consent of all its religious, which belonged to Sainte-Fontaine.
In 1227, the prior Ponce, together with John of Chalon, count of Burgundy, soul, Lord of Coligny and Andelot, and Hugues de Rougemont, grand master of the temple, put their seal to the donation made by