The Pagan World by David Barton

For example, Supreme Court Justice James Iredell observed: According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most.” Signer of the Constitution Rufus King explained: In our laws by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths.

The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires. George Washington, too, believed that an oath inherently contained a sense of religious obligation. In his “Farewell Address,” he asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?

And John Adams similarly declared: Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. Also indicative of this belief is the fact that when the convention of South Carolina ratified the Constitution in 1788, it proposed that in Article VI the word “other” should be inserted after the word “no,” implying that an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution was itself a religious test. Numerous other sources further illustrate the fact that the taking of an oath presupposed a belief in God. For example, the 1799 Kentucky Constitution declared: The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be esteemed by the General Assembly the Legislature the most solemn appeal to God.

Other constitutions contained the same declaration. Chancellor James Kent a Father of American Jurisprudence noted that an oath of office was a “religious solemnity” and that to administer an oath was “to call in the aid of religion.” In the case People v. Ruggles (1811), Kent ruled that “Christianity was parcel of the law and to cast contumelious insulting reproaches upon it tended to weaken the efficacy effectiveness of oaths,” again affirming the intrinsic relationship between taking an oath and a belief in God.

Religion and the Constitution by David Barton

The question of what the Founders intended as the proper relationship between religious expressions and “public” life (whether in education, law, government, or throughout society in general) is clearly documented in their numerous writings on this subject. Those records establish their intent and thus clarify their two references to religion in the Constitution.

The first reference is in Article VI, Section 3: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The second is in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Through the years, these two constitutional requirements have formed the basis of many judicial decisions. Historically, legal scholars have examined both phrases when seeking the intent of either; the understanding of each was made more complete through the examination of both. The goal was always to identify and establish the original context and purpose of those two religious provisos before attempting to apply them.

However, in Everson (1947) the modern Court discarded this objective. It first divorced the First Amendment from its original purpose and then reinterpreted it without regard to either historical context or previous judicial decisions. The result was that the Court abandoned the traditional constitutional meaning of “religion” as a single denomination or system of worship and instead substituted a new “modern” concept which even now remains vague and nebulous, having changed several times in recent years.

By this substitution, the Court created a new and foreign purpose for the First Amendment and completely rewrote its scope of protections and prohibitions. In attaching today’s “enlightened” perceptions to yesterday’s acts, the Court demonstrated an unscholarly, and even disquieting approach to both law and history. As explained by Founder Noah Webster, † not only misinterpretation but even serious error can result when original meanings are ignored: In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which in particular passages obscure the sense of the original languages.

The effect of these changes is that some words are being now used in a sense different from that which they had and thus present wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced mistakes may be very injurious. To avoid the “injurious mistakes” which may arise from misinterpreting the First Amendment, one need simply establish the original intent of that Amendment.

Multiple Ballots by David Barton

The fourth device was suppressive election procedures. This included the use of “multiple ballots.” That is, a Republican voter might be required to cast a ballot in up to eight separate locations – or sometimes to vote for each individual Republican on the ballot at a separate location – before the ballot would be counted. Democratic officials often failed to inform black voters of this complicated procedure and their ballots were therefore disqualified. 320 Democrats also used what were called “hide-and-seek polling places,” moving voting boxes to unknown locations at the last minute and then posting armed guards in case any black should stumble upon the hidden voting box. Democrats used discriminatory literacy tests to prevent African Americans from voting.

The fifth device included the use of so-called Black Codes to restrict the freedoms and economic opportunities of blacks. Rep. Robert Brown Elliott reported:

Among the first acts of legislation adopted by several of the southern Democratic States were laws which imposed upon the colored race onerous oppressive disabilities and burdens and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property to such an extent that their freedom was of little value. . . . They colored citizens were, in some States, forbidden to appear in the towns. . . . They were required to reside on and cultivate the soil – without the right to purchase or own it. They were excluded from any occupations of gain i.e., paying jobs and were not permitted to give testimony in the courts in any case where a white man was a party.

Beginning as early as 1865, southern Democrats passed Black Codes to prevent blacks from holding office, owning agricultural property, entering towns without permission, serving on juries, racially intermarrying, or voting. They even passed – in flagrant violation of the U. S. Constitution – laws preventing blacks from owning knifes or firearms, thus exposing them to Klan violence without any way to defend themselves. National observers at that time concluded that the Democratic South was simply trying to institute a new form of slavery through the use of these Black Codes. Representative Richard Cain of South Carolina agreed: republican U. S. rep. Robert brown Elliott democratic laws left blacks unprotected against the Klan.

When the government of the United States had made the black man free – when Congress, in the greatness of its magnanimity generosity prepared to give to every class of men their rights, and in reconstructing the southern States guaranteed to all the people their liberties – you Democrats refused to acquiesce in agree to the laws enacted by Congress – you Democrats refused to “accept the situation” – to recognize the rights of that class of men in the land. You sought to make the reconstruction acts a nullity, if possible. You sought to re-enslave the black man by every means in your power.

Southern Democracy by David Barton

Democrats understood how important it was to their survival to prevent blacks from voting. In fact, an illustration from that period showed an allegory of the Bible story of Samson, who lost his strength when his hair was cut. In that illustration, the woman – named “Southern Democracy” – has used her razor – called “the lost cause regained” – to southern democrats removed voting rights from African Americans democratic groups rejoicing over the loss of voting rights for African Americans Democratic leaders of that day, including General Nathan Bedford Barbecue” and that Democrats are burning various books in the foreground, including the Holy Bible. As this illustration confirmed, limiting black voting became cut the black Samson’s hair and cause him to lose his strength; and what is his hair – his strength? It is called “suffrage,” or voting. With the strength – or the vote – of black Americans removed, various democratic groups and leaders were rejoicing in the background: Confederates, the KKK, pro-slavery forces, and several famous Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Klan. By the way, notice the phrase “The Democratic the major goal for southern Democrats.

Given the explicit federal voting protections that had been established by the 14th and 15th Amendments and the numerous federal civil rights laws, it was no easy task for Democrats to circumvent those protections. It required devious and cunning methods, and southern Democratic legislatures implemented almost a dozen separate devices to deprive blacks of political representation and to keep them from voting.

The first device was the poll tax, a fee paid by a voter before he could vote. The fee was high enough that most poor were unable to pay the tax and therefore was unable to vote; and while some southern whites were poor, nearly all southern blacks were poor, having just emerged from slavery and not yet having established an independent means of living. Democrats in Tennessee enacted a poll tax in 1870, as did Democrats in Delaware in 1873. In 1874, Texas proposed a poll tax right after Democrats reclaimed power from Republicans; in 1876, North Carolina enacted a poll tax; 315 and other Democratic States followed.

Literacy tests were the second means that Democrats used to disenfranchise blacks. Literacy tests required a voter to demonstrate a certain level of specific knowledge before he could vote. In some cases, the test was 20 pages long for blacks, and those administering the tests were white Democrats who nearly always ruled that blacks were illiterate. Don’t misunderstand: literacy tests were not about whether someone could read or write; this literacy tests often contained questions requiring knowledge of obscure and little-known facts. For example, in Alabama the test included questions such as, “Where do residential electors cast ballots for president?” or “Name the rights a person has after he has been indicted by a grand jury.” Ironically, Democrats steadfastly opposed sound education for blacks but then required that blacks have an above average education before they could vote! Clearly, these southern Democrats did not intend for blacks to vote.

The third device used to disenfranchise black Americans was “Grandfather” clauses. “Grandfather” clauses were laws passed by Democratic legislatures allowing only those individuals to vote whose father or grandfather had been registered to vote prior to the passage of the 15th Amendment. Since voting in the South for decades prior to that Amendment had been almost exclusively by whites, this law ensured that poor and illiterate whites could vote but not blacks.

The Democratic Platform by David Barton

Even with the massive voter intimidation in Wade Hampton’s election, it was still so close that no winner emerged. After massive controversy, confusion, and finally court intervention, the Democrat Hampton was declared the winner and became governor, but only under extremely questionable circumstances. 163 In fact, the editorial cartoons in Harper’s following that election showed a triumphant Democrat standing over the bodies of slaughtered African American voters.

Considering the Klan-like support that Hampton received, it is no wonder that when he became the Democratic governor of the State, civil rights reforms in South Carolina came to a halt.

However, returning to General Hampton’s role at the Democratic National Convention of 1868, as a member of the Resolutions Committee, he inserted a clause in the Democratic platform declaring that the civil rights laws of the Congress were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.” 166 In fact, throughout that platform Democrats lashed out against the Republican civil rights measures, demanding “the abolition of the Freedmen’s Bureau and all political instrumentalities designed to secure Negro supremacy.” That platform further complained: Instead of restoring the Union, it the Republican Party has – so far as in its power – dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy.

Clearly, the errant claims in this Democratic plank are ludicrous, for the years from 1865-1868 were marked not by “profound peace” but rather by profound violence, characterized by the rapid and expansive growth of the Klan and similar organizations perpetrating numerous deadly attacks against African Americans. The ten States that Democrats claim were “subjected to military despotism and Negro supremacy” were ten of the Democratic States that had seceded to form the slave-holding Confederate States of America, and the “despotism” to which they were subjected was nothing more than the requirements that they recognize the civil rights of African Americans. Ironically, Democrats were so accustomed to the suppression of black Americans that simply to give them equality was absurdly considered to be “Negro supremacy.” To Democrats in that day, equality for blacks – that is, making blacks and whites equal before the law – meant “Negro supremacy”!

The other featured portrait in the handbill of the 1868 national Democratic delegates was that of Rebel General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest had been a slave-trader from Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest Tennessee and was the Rebel General who conducted the massacre of black soldiers in the infamous bloody episode at Fort Pillow. After the black Union soldiers had surrendered, Forrest ordered them slaughtered on the spot, using some of the most barbaric and inhumane tortures and atrocities available, including nailing black soldiers to the sides of buildings and then burning down the buildings, drowning others, and even burying black soldiers alive. 169 After the War, General Nathan Bedford Forrest became the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan 170 – and he was an honored leader at the Democratic National Convention of 1868! Given the composition of the Democratic Party, it is no wonder that not one of the Democrats in Congress voted for the 14th Amendment to secure civil rights for black Americans at the State level.

In its first ten years inside the Capitol, the Court bounced around from location to location – from various committee rooms to library rooms to whatever was available. Then, in 1810, when the Senate left its original chamber and moved directly upstairs to what is now called the Old Senate Chamber, the Supreme Court inherited the vacated downstairs Senate chamber. early city plan for washington, d. c.

It was in that room – the basement of the Old Senate Chamber – that the Supreme Court found its first permanent home and the location that it kept for the next 50 years. Then, when the Senate vacated its second home in the Old Senate Chamber and moved into its third and current home, the Supreme Court moved upstairs to possess the again vacated Senate Chamber.

David Barton explains that the Supreme Court had no building of its own was intentional; it reflected the Founders’ design that the Court should have no major role in shaping policy in the nation. Simply look at the Constitution for proof: Article I deals with the powers of the Congress; Article II with the powers of the President, and Article III with the powers of the Supreme Court. Article I is by far the longest of those three articles, and Article III is obviously the shortest.

Even though the Founders believed that a Supreme Court was important, it was so insignificant in the overall view of government, that John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, retired from his position after only six years because, as he observed, the Supreme Court would never amount to anything much. 79 In fact, for the first 10 years of its existence, the entire Supreme Court term lasted less than two weeks each year; and for the next fifty years, the Court still met for only six to eight weeks a year. 80

It was not until 1935 – nearly a century-and-a-half after the Founders had written the Constitution – that a separate building was built behind the Capitol to house the Supreme Court, the home it occupies today. And it was not until two decades after this, in the late 1950s, that the Supreme Court, under the guidance of its activist Chief Justice, Earl Warren, first began to meet for nearly nine months 81 out of each year – a practice which still continues today.

Justice on Court By David Barton

Yet, despite the Court’s original lack of stature, there were several interesting practices of the Court which contribute much to our rich spiritual heritage. One of those practices was instituted by the first Justices on the Court.

According to David Barton there were six original Justices appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington. They included its Chief Justice, John Jay, an author of The Federalist Papers; three signers of the Constitution: James Wilson, John Blair, and John Rutledge (who later became the Court’s second Chief Justice); and James Iredell and William Cushing (who helped secure the ratification of the Constitution).

In its first years, the Supreme Court functioned much like the old circuit courts; it traveled from place to place across America to hear cases and to convene grand juries. One of the practices of the Court – a practice conducted under these original Justices – was the regular offering of prayers in the Courtroom. 82

According to the records of the Supreme Court as well as the newspapers of the day, juries in the Supreme Court did not begin their work until after a minister had come into the Courtroom and prayed – for the Court, the jurors, and their deliberations! In fact, a newspaper account in the Columbian Centinel of May 16, 1792, reports very simply:

[O]n Monday, Chief Justice [John] Jay gave a charge to the Grand Jury, replete with his usual perspicuity and elegance. The prayer was made by the Rev. Dr. Parker. His Excellency, the Vice-President of the United States [John Adams], was in Court. 83