Shop More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Professional Member Richard A. SpakeMale/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 6 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 239 Deviations 227 Comments 4,194 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Critiques

Paragon by JediMasterEeth

Hi there! Star-Spangled & Patriotic Characters are one of my favorite types to develop! The Cape would look good if you went with the i...

Activity


Sci-Fi German states Map (inspired by 2300ad) by Spake759
Sci-Fi German states Map (inspired by 2300ad)
In my sci-fi setting that was inspired by the world of 2300ad, the German states were independent after the European Civil War that completely destroyed the European Union... and saw the death of European unification at the price of French overreach. The Germans had so believed in the creation of a single unified European state they had disbanded the Federal government with each of the historic German states being reborn to represent their unique German cultures and traditions. But without a unified German identity, the French who dominated the European government were able to to do what ever they wanted without a sizeable opposition. Only the British Isles stood against French domination of European affairs... which slowly saw Europe becoming completely dominated by French leadership. And when the British withdrew from the European Union, it would spark the fires of the nearly forgotten nationalism thanks to the French Over-reach... starting the Civil War that saw the destruction of the European Union.

The German states would remain dis-unified, associating within the three free defense alliances (Northern led by Hanover, Southern lead by Bavaria, and the Eastern lead by Brandenburg). The German states became capable of holding onto their hard won freedoms, the return of a type of monarch whom were tied to the ideals that they were the servants of their people.

But as time slowly moved on, the three strongest and most influential of German States; The Kingdom of Hanover, Free State of Bavaria and the Electorate of Brandenburg saw that the French were starting to expand their influence once more into Europe by leveraging their control over the European arm of Terran Exploration in an attempt to force concessions to French power in Europe and beyond. It was during this period that the German states found themselves being drawn into conflicts in far off lands when their armed forces were contracted by others, and it was during this period that the Germans would start to develop their intelligence service into a capable force to keep the German leaders and their armed forces informed on what was going on outside their spheres of influence so they would not be drawn into hopeless causes. And this would see German nationalism slowly started to congeal around the three major German states, the defense alliances they led would come together under their leadership creating three German national confederations that were kept at each others throats by forces that at first seemed unrelated.

"Training Accidents" that increased in destruction when the three states carried out their combined arms defense exercises or "Corporate Espionage" that saw German tech being spread outside the German Customs Union that would be blamed on 'other' German state's incompetence... but the truth came out when the papers of a French diplomat who was suppose to be 'trying to keep the peace' between the nearly waring German states is killed in a simple auto accident comes to light. Those papers were reports detailing the efforts he and his office had been engaged in going back decades to get the German states to go to war with each other in an effort to distract and cause the rest of Europe to fear the German bogeyman once more.

The German states unified shortly after this as the German Federal Republic... A Federal Constitutional Republic with its many states maintaining their local governments and traditions, and creating a single unified government dedicated to the defense of the German people as a whole. It was the first Terran nation to fully accept their extra-terrestrial colonial territories as full states on an equal footing.

Within a single generation, the German Federal Republic became a major Terran Power capable of joining other powers in an effort to balance out the influence of the expansive reach of the French Union (an empire in all but name) among the European sphere.
Loading...
Sci-Fi map of Europe by Spake759
Sci-Fi map of Europe
United Kingdom of the British Isles
Austro-Slovene Commonwealth (Österreichisch-slowenischen Commonwealth)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosna i Hercegovina)
Republic of Bulgaria (Republika Balgariya)

Principality of Andorra (Principat d'Andorra)

Byelorussian Republic (Belaruskaya Respublika)

 

Cretan State (Kritiki Politia) [<>] 

Republic of Croatia (Republika Hrvatska) [<>] 

Republic of Cyprus (Kypriakī́ Dīmokratía / Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti) [British Commonwealth of Nations] 

Czech Republic (Česká republika) [<>] 

 

German Federal Republic (Deutsche Bundesrepublik) [<d>] 

Gibraltar [British Overseas Territory] 

Hellenic Republic (Ellīnikī́ Dīmokratía) [<d>] 

Hungarian Republic (Magyar Köztársaság)

Republic of Kosovo (Republika e Kosovës / Republika Kosovo) [<d>] 

Kurdish Republic (Komâra Kurdî) [] 

Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republika) [<d>] 

Levantine Commonwealth (Administrative Divisions/States: State of Israel, Lebanese State, Judea & Somria, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Kingdom of Jordan)

Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstentum Liechtenstein) 

Lucani Italian Republic (Lucani Repubblica Italiana)

Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија / Republika Makedonija) 

Maltese Republic (Repubblika Malti) aka Republic of Malta (Repubblika ta' Malta)  

Republic of Moldova (Republica Moldova) [<d>] 

Principality of Monaco (Principatu de Múnegu / Principat de Mónegue / Principauté de Monaco) [<d>] 

Republic of Montenegro (Republika Crna Gora) [<d>] 

Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) [<d>] 

Polish Republic (Pòlskô Repùblika) [<d>] 

Portuguese Republic (República Portuguesa) [<d>] 

Romania (România) [<d>] 

Most Serene Republic of San Marino (Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino) 

Scandinavian Union (skandinaviska föreningen) Administrative Divisions: Kingdom of Sweden (Konungariket Sverige), Kingdom of Norway (Kongeriket Noreg), Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark), Republic of Finland (Suomen tasavalta / Republiken Finland), Iceland (Ísland), Greenland (Kalaallisut: Kalaallit Nunaat "Land of the Kalaallit", Danish: Grønland), Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Svalbard og Jan Mayen), Faroe Islands (Føroyar or Færøerne), Bouvet Island (Bouvetøya)

Republic of Serbia (Republika Srbija)   

Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España)

Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica) [<d>] 

Transylvania (Ardeal or Transilvania/Erdély) [<d>] 

Tuscan Italian Republic (Toscana Repubblica italia) [<dd>] 

Turkish Republic (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) [<d>] 

Ukrainian Commonwealth (Ukrayinsʹkyy Spivdruzhnosti) [<d>] 

Union of Sovereign Northern Republics aka "Russian Federation" (Soyuz Suverennykh Severnyye Respublik)

Vatican City-State (Stato della Città del Vaticano) [<d>] 

 

Loading...

Frederick Douglass is one of my heroes... that's right, I'm a white kid grew up looking up to a man who had escaped slavery and taught himself not only how to read and become an orator. But more importantly, he knew when he made a mistake and did what ever he could to fix that mistake. He had lambasted and loathed the Constitution without ever having read it. And when he finally read it he realized he was wrong, and that the people who had been USING him had lied to him all that time so they could use him for their goals, and not for the truth... so he broke with the people he considered responsible for helping him become the man he had been. And he went on to become and even greater man. Because he knew that you have to stand by the truth. And that's what he did. And that for a kid who was an outsider, who when he told the truth was treated like he was a fool... that meant alot. because he didn't have to play a clown to have friends. And that, that was something that gave me a lot of hope for the future.

The Constitution and Slavery

Frederick Douglass

The North Star

March 16, 1849

The assertion which we made five weeks ago, that “the Constitution, if strictly construed according to its reading,” is not a pro-slavery instrument, has excited some interest amongst our Anti-Slavery brethren. Letters have reached us from different quarters on the subject. Some of these express agreement and pleasure with our views, and others, surprise and dissatisfaction. Each class of opinion and feeling is represented in the letters which we have placed in another part of this week’s paper. The one from our friend Gerrit Smith, represents the view which the Liberty party take of this subject, and that of Mr. Robert Forten is consistent with the ground occupied by a majority of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

 

Whether we shall be able to set ourselves right in the minds of those on the one side of this question or the other, and at the same time vindicate the correctness of our former assertion, remains to be seen. Of one thing, however, we can assure our readers, and this is, that we bring to the consideration of this subject no partisan feelings, nor the slightest wish to make ourselves consistent with the creed of either Anti-Slavery party, and that our only aim is to know what is truth and what is duty in respect to the matter in dispute, holding ourselves perfectly free to change our opinion in any direction, and at any time which may be indicated by our immediate apprehension of truth, unbiased by the smiles or frowns of any class or party of abolitionists. The only truly consistent man is he who will, for the sake of being right today, contradict what he said wrong yesterday. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” True stability consists not in being of the same opinion now as formerly, but in a fixed principle of honesty, even urging us to the adoption or rejection of that which may seem to us true or false at the ever-present now.

 

Before entering upon a discussion of the main question, it may be proper to remove a misapprehension into which Gerrit Smith and Robert Forten seem to have fallen, in respect to what we mean by the term, “strictly construed according to its reading,” as used by us in regard to the Constitution. Upon a second reading of these words, we can readily see how easily they can be made to mean more than we intended. What we mean then, and what we would be understood to man now, is simply this — that the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument. Of this admission we are perfectly willing to give our esteemed friend Gerrit Smith, and all who think with him on this subject, the fullest benefit; accompanied, however, with this explanation, that it was made with no view to give the public to understand that we held this construction to be the proper one of that instrument, and that it was drawn out merely because we were unwilling to go before the public on so narrow an issue, and one about which there could be so little said on either side. How a document would appear under one construction, is one thing; but whether the construction be the right one, is quite another and a very different thing. Confounding these two things, has led Gerrit Smith to think too favorably of us, and Robert Forten too unfavorably. We may agree with the Roman Catholic, that the language of Christ, with respect to the sacrament, if construed according to reading, teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. But the admission is not final, neither are we understood by doing so, to sanction that irrational though literal doctrine. Neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant could attach any importance to such an admission. It would neither afford pleasure to the Catholic, nor pain to the Protestant. Hoping that we have now made ourselves understood on this point, we proceed to the general question.

 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SLAVERY

 

The Constitution of the United States. — What is it? Who made it? For whom and for what was it made? Is it from heaven or from men? How, and in what light are we to understand it? If it be divine, divine light must be our means of understanding it; if human, humanity, with all its vice and crimes, as well as its virtues, must help us to a proper understanding of it. All attempts to explain it in the light of heaven must fail. It is human, and must be explained in the light of those maxims and principles which human beings have laid down as guides to the understanding of all written instruments, covenants, contracts and agreements, emanating from human beings, and to which human beings are parties, both on the first and the second part. It is in such a light that we propose to examine the Constitution; and in this light we hold it to be a most cunningly-devised and wicked compact, demanding the most constant and earnest efforts of the friends of righteous freedom for its complete overthrow. It was “conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity.” But this will be called mere declamation, and assertion — mere “heat without light” — sound and fury signify nothing. — Have it so. Let us then argue the question with all the coolness and clearness of which an learned fugitive slave, smarting under the wrongs inflicted by this unholy Union, is capable. We cannot talk “lawyer like” about law — about its emanating from the bosom of God! — about government, and of its seat in the great heart of the Almighty! — nor can we, in connection with such an ugly matter-of-fact looking thing as the United States Constitution, bring ourselves to split hairs about the alleged legal rule of interpretation, which declares that an “act of the Legislature may be set aside when it contravenes natural justice.” We have to do with facts, rather than theory. The Constitution is not an abstraction. It is a living breathing fact, exerting a mighty power over the nation of which it is the bond of the Union.

 

Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slavery , and without an interpreter, although some difficulty might have occurred in applying its manifold provisions, yet so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial, and not a celestial origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery. Slavery existed before the Constitution, in the very States by whom it was made and adopted. — Slaveholders took a large share in making it. It was made in view of the existence of slavery, and in a manner well calculated to aid and strengthen that heaven-daring crime.

 

Take, for instance, article 1st, section 2d, to wit: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 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 including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.”

 

A diversity of persons are here described — persons bound to service for a term of years, Indians not taxed, and three-fifths of all other persons. Now, we ask, in the name of common sense, can there be an honest doubt that, in States where there are slaves, that they are included in this basis of representation? To us, it is as plain as the sun in the heavens that this clause does, and was intended to mean, that the slave States should enjoy a representation of their human chattels under this Constitution. Beside, the term free, which is generally, though not always, used as the correlative of slave, “all other persons,” settles the question forever that slaves are here included.

 

Its is contended on this point by Lysander Spooner and others, that the words, “all other persons,” used in this article of the Constitution, relates only to aliens. We deny that the words bear any such construction. Are we to presume that the Constitution, which so carefully points out a class of persons for exclusion, such as “Indians not taxed,” would be silent with respect to another class which it was meant equally to exclude? We have never studied logic, but it does seem to us that such a presumption would be very much like an absurdity. And the absurdity is all the more glaring, when it is remembered and the language used immediately after the words “excluding Indians are not taxed,” (having done with exclusions) it includes “all other persons.” It is as easy to suppose that the Constitution contemplates including Indians, (against its express declaration to the contrary,) as it is to suppose that it should be construed to mean the exclusion of slaves from the basis of representation, against the express language, “including all other persons.” Where all are included, none remain to be excluded. The reasonings of those who are likely to take the opposite view of the clause, appears very much like quibbling, to use no harsher word. One thing is certain about this clause of the Constitution. It is this — that under it, the slave system has enjoyed a large and domineering representation in Congress, which has given laws to the whole Union in regard to slavery, ever since the formation of the government.

 

Satisfied that the view we have given of this clause of the Constitution is the only sound interpretation of it, we throw at once all those parts and particulars of the instrument which refer to slavery, and constitute what we conceive to be the slaveholding compromises of the Constitution, before the reader, and beg that he will look with candor upon the comments which we propose to make upon them.

 

“Art. 5th, Sect. 8th. — Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections.”

 

“Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

 

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

 

“Art. 4th, Sec. 4th — The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against Domestic violence.”

 

The first article and ninth section is a full, complete and broad sanction of the slavetrade for twenty years. In this compromise of the Constitution, the parties to it pledged the national arm to protect that infernal trade for twenty years. While all other subjects of commerce were left under the control of Congress, this species of commerce alone was Constitutionally exempted. And why was this the case? Simply because South Carolina and Georgia declared, through their delegates that framed the Constitution, that they would not come into the Union if this traffic in human flesh should be prohibited. Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, (a distinguished member of the Convention that framed the Constitution,) said, “if the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain.” Mr. Pinckney said, South Carolina could never receive the plan, “if it prohibits the slavetrade.” In consequence of the determination of these States to sand out of the Union in case of the traffic in human flesh should prohibited, and from one was adopted, as a compromise; and shameful as it is, it is by no means more shameful than others which preceded and succeeded it. The slaveholding South, by that unyielding tenacity and consistency which they usually contend for their measures, triumphed, and the doughface North was brought to the disgraceful terms in question, just s they have been ever since on all questions touching the subject of slavery.

 

As a compensation for their base treachery to human freedom and justice, the North were permitted to impose a tax of ten dollars for each person imported, with which to swell the coffers of the national treasury, thus baptizing the infant Republic with the blood-stained gold.

 

Art. 4, Sec. 2. — This article was adopted with a view to restoring fugitive slaves to their masters — ambiguous, to be sure, but sufficiently explicit to answer the end sought to be attained. Under it, and in accordance with it, the Congress enacted the atrocious “law of ’93,” making it penal in a high degree to harbor or shelter the flying fugitive. The whole nation that adopted it, consented to become kidnappers, and the whole land converted into slave-hunting ground.

 

Art. 4, Sec. 4. — Pledges the national arm to protect the slaveholder from domestic violence, and is the safeguard of the Southern tyrant against the vengeance of the outraged and plundered slave. Under it, the nation is bound to do the bidding of the slaveholder, to bring out the whole naval and military power of the country, to crush the refractory slaves into obedience to their cruel masters. Thus has the North, under the Constitution, not only consented to form bulwarks around the system of slavery, with all its bloody enormities, to prevent the slave from escape, but has planted its uncounted feet and tremendous weight on the heaving hearts of American bondmen, to prevent them from rising to gain their freedom. Could Pandemonium devise a Union more inhuman, unjust, and affronting to God and man, than this? Yet such is the Union consummated under the Constitution of the United States. It is truly a compact demanding immediate disannulment, and one which, with our view of its wicked requirements, we can never enter.

 

We might just here drop the pen and the subject, and assume the Constitution to be what we have briefly attempted to prove it to be, radically and essentially pro-slavery, in fact as well as in its tendency; and regard our position to be correct beyond the possibility of an honest doubt, and treat those who differ from us as mere cavilers, bent upon making the worse appear the better reason; or we might anticipate the objections which are supposed to be valid against that position. We are, however, disposed to do neither. — We have too much respect for the men opposed to us to do the former, and have too strong a desire to have those objections put in their most favorable light, to do the latter. — We are prepared to hear all sides, and to give the arguments of our opponents a candid consideration. Where an honest expression of views is allowed, Truth has nothing to fear.

And now if our friend Gerrit Smith desires to be heard on the other side, the columns of the North Star are at his service. We can assure him that he cannot have a stronger wish to turn every rightful instrumentality against slavery, than we have; and if the Constitution can be so turned, and he can satisfy us of the fact, we shall readily, gladly and zealously, turn our feeble energies in that direction. The case which our friend Gerrit Smith put to us in his letter is a good one, but fails in a most important particular, and that is, analogy. The only likeness which we can see in the supposed case of a bargain with Brown, to that of the bargain entered into by the North and the South, is that there is gross dishonesty in both. So far, there is a striking similarity, but no further. The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was no himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa, and all this to form a Union by which to repel invasion, and otherwise promoted their interest. No, friend Smith, we are not asked to act the honorable part of “Judge Douglass” with respect to this “contract,” but to become a guilty party to it, and in reply we say — No!

The Liberal Progressive Democrats really love to call Conservatives and Constitutionalists all kind of names that basically boils down to us being haters and worse than even the Sith, that we will bathe in the blood of minorities before and after every meal we steal right out of the mouths of the homeless... even when the evidence keeps stacking up showing that the real hate comes from their side. It wasn't just the fact that one of their biggest supporters in the media was taking great glee in the brutal assault of the daughters of Sara Palin that can be pointed out too prove this fact. Anyone with an ounce of honesty and a search engine can prove this simple fact that when the Liberal Progressive Democrats are the ones saying something so hate-filled, they get a pass from the rest of the members of their little cult of hate. But when a Conservative or Constitutionalist says something offensive, we're the first ones to jump in with both feet condemning such horrid behavior.  

So much hatred, jealousy and self-righteous ideology that is based upon the fact that they feel that they (and only they) are the only ones who knows what’s right for YOU to be doing with your life that pushes these Progressives forward is terrifying if you take the long-term view of them throughout history. Go take a look at the kinds of things that George Bernard Shaw advocated for as an example, he’s one of the most so-called ‘Eloquent’ of speakers who embodied the Progressive movement during the start of the Twentieth Century. His calls for scientists to create a humane gas to be used to extinguish the lives of the unfortunates who were minority groups or just could not prove that their lives had meaning to a panel of Progressive Ideologues every few years… or how he sang the praises of both Mussolini and Hitler and how they were creating such a perfect society!

The Progressives talk of diversity, but as soon as you say something they don’t like… they are screaming you down. Threatening you with all kinds of violence and stopping whatever school you’ve been invited to speak at to reserve course and bar you from entering it! Hell, look at Canada and its “Progressive” hate speech laws that only protect the real hate speech while punishing those who are trying to draw attention to such things… they protect the people who are calling for Shiara Law that turns non-Muslims into less than second-class citizens, and ensures that it is so damn much harder for minorities and women to get justice when they are the victim of violence. In the United Kingdom they just recently arrested a radical Imam for his extremist statements and support for violent radical extremists like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria… but he is still there preaching his hate, and those who try and oppose that hate are arrested and prosecuted for their efforts to ensure that the fact the Jews were the victims of the Holocaust, or defending the right of parents to sing a stupid song about a cartoon pig to calm their autistic daughter while they were on a bus.

Let’s take a look at the Mid-Term Elections that we just went through. The Democrats and other Progressive Candidates lost because their constant message that the Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists and Tea Partiers were engaged in a “War on Women”, that we wanted to have the police murder black children, that we wanted to bring back the Democrat created Jim Crow Laws, that we were trying to stop Minorities from Voting, that we wanted to outlaw every form of birth control ever devised, that we wanted to force all women to become second-class citizens whose only job was to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchens, that we wanted to bring back the Democrat sponsored day long Lynching of Black events, or way too many other hate-filled accusations that had NO BASIS in fact.

All that hate is so fraking stupid, because we have seen the election of Tea Party members like Tim Scott, Mia Love and Elise Stefanik into office due to our support for these men and women whose ideals we champion because we focus on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin…  Hmmm, who does that sound more like? To me, it sounds more like Doctor Martin Luther King Jr and nothing like Al Sharpton, Barrack Obama, Eric Holder or Jessie Jackson than anything else I’ve been hearing for the past eight years from those who attempt to claim King's legacy.

 

And it sure as hell wasn’t all of that mythical "GOP voter suppression" that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE, unlike the repeated attempts of the Democrats to consider Voter Fraud to be a myth when we have tons of evidence (and a crap-ton of Democrat Party Officials serving TIME in prison for getting convicted of Voter Fraud)… especially when the only real cases of Voter Suppression we have was the conviction of the New Black Panthers during the 2008 Presidential Election in Philly that Eric Holder refused to allow the US Attorney prosecuting the case go in so that the Judge could hand down their ruling!

 

Voter ID laws are the NORM all across the globe to bolster confidence in election integrity, and just how many times do you have to see the pictures of Mandela in a Tee-Shirt promoting Voter ID cards to get past this myth that it’s a racist idea to suppress the Minority Vote?

 

The man in the White House is already talking as if he’s going to set himself up as a dictator by legislating with Executive Order instead of working with the democratically elected majorities in both the House and Senate. It’s bad enough that Sen. Harry Reid refused to allow the HUNDREDS of bills that the House had gotten past to languish on his desk instead of having them debated on the floor of the United States Senate because he knew that when the American People saw that the it was the Democrats in Congress who were the real do-nothings and were the ones who were screwing the Pooch that it would put an end to the decades of lies that the Liberal Progressive Democrats have been spreading about the Republicans, Conservatives and other Small and Limited Government types.

 

The increasing power that we keep putting into the hands of the Federal government the more we learn of scandals and corruption that have led to the deaths of Innocent American Citizens, the use of the IRS to go after Political dissent was tried by Richard M. Nixon and it was STOPPED and HORRIFIED the American People so much that it was part of what ended the Nixon Presidency. But that kind of thing is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG with the Obama Administration. We have had crisis after crisis, scandal after scandal that has included the deaths of so many innocent American CITIZENS that it’s not a national tragedy… but a National SHAME.

 

We have one of the most scandalous and corruption riddled Presidential Administrations since that of Ulysses S. Grant (1869 to 1877). But what is worse, is that Obama has blamed it all on his predecessor… which worked for about maybe the first six months into his presidency. To still be going to that tired excuse after SIX YEARS into Office? That doesn’t just sound childish, but screams incompetence in such a way that even the deaf can hear it. I mean in all honesty, if any of us tried that kind of shit at our jobs we’d be unemployed so damn fast we’d be wondering if we ever had been in that job.

 

The kind of Incompetence that has been exhibited by the Obama Administration has been seen since the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter and made him look incredibly competent in the same manner that you would compare a Special Forces Survival Instructor to a first day Boys Scout Tenderfoot!

 

How many times do you have to be shown that our dear beloved leader, the thin-skinned man-child god-king of the Liberal Progressive Movement, has been ignoring the Daily Presidential Briefs to go to fund raisers or play another round of golf to get the fact that we are opposed to this president due to his policies and apparent incompetence that shows he is not able to govern nor fulfill even the most mundane of Presidential Duties and not his race? How many times do you have to see evidence of intimidation of journalists, the use of federal espionage laws to prosecute whistle blowers, the use of illegal means by the government to hack into a widely known liberal investigative journalist computers to plant classified documents onto their hard drives, the use of the IRS to go after political opponents and dissenters, the use of lawfare to wage a war against religious groups… I can keep going with examples that if the person in the White House was a Republican, the Democrats would have been up in arms before I had even finished typing out the first example!

 

All that means, is that YOU have bought into the Cult of Personality that has surrounded this President. You had bought into the Hope and Change that sounded oh so damn nice… but hope and change is not a plan for governing, and we tried to tell you this and we are still getting called racists and bigots for our efforts.

 

Even when we are showing you evidence from what little existed of his voting record that caused us to question his ability to be a good president, we focused ENTIRELY on his qualifications and the quality of his character, and to us he was severely lacking… and unlike you, who attacked George W. Bush and his family at every opportunity for every little thing that you could nitpick (like calling him a chimp because you think he looked like one, to me that sounds kind of RACIST don’t you think?), we focused on his tract record as a community organizer, as an elected state official and the voting record while in the US Senate and his associations with Domestic Terrorists and those who preached radical ideologies like Jeremiah Wright.

 

And after the past SIX YEARS of Corruption, Scandal and Incompetence we have been faced with during the Obama Presidency that led to the outcome of this mid-term election… are you guys ready to start to listen to us now? I really hope you are, because the guy in the White House has repeatedly stated that he will not WORK with the newly elected Republican Majorities in Congress… that he plans on operating, legislating and governing this great REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC via Executive Order.

 

In fact the White House today announced that President Obama "will continue to act aggressively" to enact his liberal immigration agenda through executive orders, bypassing Congress, regardless of the outcome of the midterm elections. This is not, of course, the first statement of this kind that Americans have heard from this president, but it was perhaps the most official, coming not during a campaign speech but from White House press secretary Josh Earnest during a press briefing. Now, the United States Constitution grants the United States Congress, and ONLY the United States Congress, the authority to make rules about the naturalization of new American citizens. Obama has repeatedly stated his intent attempt to get around that by claiming that he is not granting citizenship to anyone by executive order, only the right to stay and work in the United States.

 

I’m not sorry to have to tell you this, but that’s how a dictatorship works… and not the representative republic with such an extremely strong democratic tradition as we have had for over two-hundred years. Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi are following their beloved leader’s example, and are not learning form the stunning defeat they had just suffered during this mid-term election… they feel they have done nothing wrong, and the little people just don’t get it. That it is THEY who are the ones who know what is best, and that the little people just need to shut up and take whatever it is that they are going to do to us.

 

The Progressive Movement is all about control, go look up what I’ve been saying… go look up the roots of your political ideology and see that I am not lying to you. That I’m being as honest and respectful of you as I can be, because the roots of the ideology you are following will lead you to the same place that it took the Germans, Italians, Russians, Chinese, South Americans and Eastern Europeans to. A place where an authoritarian government claimed to have a radically progressive and forward constitution that gave you all kinds of rights that no other could or would give you. But at the same time, the Government had the right to sweep you up off the street or out of your bed in the middle of the night because you complained to loudly about the poor quality of the toilet paper, or that there was not enough toilet paper to go around while you were standing in the mile long line waiting to get your monthly allotment. Or how that constitution protected your right to worship whatever god you believed in, but would force you to live in accordance with laws that forced you to violate the very ideals and rites of that faith.

 

It’s not a matter of Hypocrisy to want to increase the power of the government, and not expect that power to be used against you when your political opponents are in power… but while you and yours are in power are allowed to use those horribly offensive and invasive powers to oppress and keep down those same opponents while you and yours are in power. But it’s also something that shows just what kind of ideology that you have dedicated yourself to.

 

We dedicate ourselves to limiting the power of the government to interfere with our lives when what we are not doing harm to others, steal their stuff nor force them to do things they do not wish to do… that we want maximum individual freedom that goes hand-in-hand with maximum responsibility for the actions that you take. To stop blaming society for the wrongs that YOU have committed. That it’s not an inanimate object that kills people, but the evil that resides in the heart of the person who pulled the trigger, whose hands build a bomb and detonated it, or the hand that pushed the knife into someone’s body. It wasn’t the gun that did that, it wasn’t the knife that did that… it was the person who committed the crime.

 

On the average day, the average law abiding American Citizen has committed at the least… three federal offenses. That’s right, they broke three Federal Laws by just going about their day. That’s what we are standing against. The over regulation and a society that has been overburdened with so damn many laws we don’t even know we’re breaking the damn things.

 

Please tell me how is that promoting racism, sexism and bigotry? How is that oppressing the masses? Because it’s not, in fact it’s the Classical Liberal Ideology that built this country… it’s what you are saying that you are all for. But if that’s the case, why are you constantly calling us racist, sexists, bigots and mass-murders? All that does, is to prove that you have totally bought into the Politics of Destruction, accusing the other side of all the things that your side is not only actually doing… but doing those things that are so much worse when you actually look at it honesty.

 

No, I am not asking you to become Republicans… far from it.

I am just asking you to go out there and start to vote with your heads for a change instead of just blindly following your heart and doing whatever the cult of personalities that the current political parties have become want you to do!

 

I am begging you to turn away from this damn culture of hate and personal destruction that the Democrat party has become thanks to its complete control by the Liberal Progressive Movement for the past hundred years. Look at the damn political ads, it’s your side of the aisle that keeps accusing the other side of wanting dirty air, poisoned water, the return of lynching, the enforced sterilization of the mentally ill, the genocide of minorities, and other horrid and evil things that do nothing but prove that you are the ones full of hate

deviantID

Spake759's Profile Picture
Spake759
Richard A. Spake
Artist | Professional | Traditional Art
United States
I am a Disabled American Veteran, who has been drawing since i was two years old... after a fatal accident (a long story where I died, and crawled back despite the injuries to my body, heart and mind) my artwork suffered greatly, but just as i pushed myself to walk again when the doctors said that the reattached legs wouldn't support such a thing... every step hurts. but no matter how badly you get hit, you always get back up.

"American Dream Art Studio: The House of Ideals"

Frederick Douglass is one of my heroes... that's right, I'm a white kid grew up looking up to a man who had escaped slavery and taught himself not only how to read and become an orator. But more importantly, he knew when he made a mistake and did what ever he could to fix that mistake. He had lambasted and loathed the Constitution without ever having read it. And when he finally read it he realized he was wrong, and that the people who had been USING him had lied to him all that time so they could use him for their goals, and not for the truth... so he broke with the people he considered responsible for helping him become the man he had been. And he went on to become and even greater man. Because he knew that you have to stand by the truth. And that's what he did. And that for a kid who was an outsider, who when he told the truth was treated like he was a fool... that meant alot. because he didn't have to play a clown to have friends. And that, that was something that gave me a lot of hope for the future.

The Constitution and Slavery

Frederick Douglass

The North Star

March 16, 1849

The assertion which we made five weeks ago, that “the Constitution, if strictly construed according to its reading,” is not a pro-slavery instrument, has excited some interest amongst our Anti-Slavery brethren. Letters have reached us from different quarters on the subject. Some of these express agreement and pleasure with our views, and others, surprise and dissatisfaction. Each class of opinion and feeling is represented in the letters which we have placed in another part of this week’s paper. The one from our friend Gerrit Smith, represents the view which the Liberty party take of this subject, and that of Mr. Robert Forten is consistent with the ground occupied by a majority of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

 

Whether we shall be able to set ourselves right in the minds of those on the one side of this question or the other, and at the same time vindicate the correctness of our former assertion, remains to be seen. Of one thing, however, we can assure our readers, and this is, that we bring to the consideration of this subject no partisan feelings, nor the slightest wish to make ourselves consistent with the creed of either Anti-Slavery party, and that our only aim is to know what is truth and what is duty in respect to the matter in dispute, holding ourselves perfectly free to change our opinion in any direction, and at any time which may be indicated by our immediate apprehension of truth, unbiased by the smiles or frowns of any class or party of abolitionists. The only truly consistent man is he who will, for the sake of being right today, contradict what he said wrong yesterday. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” True stability consists not in being of the same opinion now as formerly, but in a fixed principle of honesty, even urging us to the adoption or rejection of that which may seem to us true or false at the ever-present now.

 

Before entering upon a discussion of the main question, it may be proper to remove a misapprehension into which Gerrit Smith and Robert Forten seem to have fallen, in respect to what we mean by the term, “strictly construed according to its reading,” as used by us in regard to the Constitution. Upon a second reading of these words, we can readily see how easily they can be made to mean more than we intended. What we mean then, and what we would be understood to man now, is simply this — that the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument. Of this admission we are perfectly willing to give our esteemed friend Gerrit Smith, and all who think with him on this subject, the fullest benefit; accompanied, however, with this explanation, that it was made with no view to give the public to understand that we held this construction to be the proper one of that instrument, and that it was drawn out merely because we were unwilling to go before the public on so narrow an issue, and one about which there could be so little said on either side. How a document would appear under one construction, is one thing; but whether the construction be the right one, is quite another and a very different thing. Confounding these two things, has led Gerrit Smith to think too favorably of us, and Robert Forten too unfavorably. We may agree with the Roman Catholic, that the language of Christ, with respect to the sacrament, if construed according to reading, teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. But the admission is not final, neither are we understood by doing so, to sanction that irrational though literal doctrine. Neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant could attach any importance to such an admission. It would neither afford pleasure to the Catholic, nor pain to the Protestant. Hoping that we have now made ourselves understood on this point, we proceed to the general question.

 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SLAVERY

 

The Constitution of the United States. — What is it? Who made it? For whom and for what was it made? Is it from heaven or from men? How, and in what light are we to understand it? If it be divine, divine light must be our means of understanding it; if human, humanity, with all its vice and crimes, as well as its virtues, must help us to a proper understanding of it. All attempts to explain it in the light of heaven must fail. It is human, and must be explained in the light of those maxims and principles which human beings have laid down as guides to the understanding of all written instruments, covenants, contracts and agreements, emanating from human beings, and to which human beings are parties, both on the first and the second part. It is in such a light that we propose to examine the Constitution; and in this light we hold it to be a most cunningly-devised and wicked compact, demanding the most constant and earnest efforts of the friends of righteous freedom for its complete overthrow. It was “conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity.” But this will be called mere declamation, and assertion — mere “heat without light” — sound and fury signify nothing. — Have it so. Let us then argue the question with all the coolness and clearness of which an learned fugitive slave, smarting under the wrongs inflicted by this unholy Union, is capable. We cannot talk “lawyer like” about law — about its emanating from the bosom of God! — about government, and of its seat in the great heart of the Almighty! — nor can we, in connection with such an ugly matter-of-fact looking thing as the United States Constitution, bring ourselves to split hairs about the alleged legal rule of interpretation, which declares that an “act of the Legislature may be set aside when it contravenes natural justice.” We have to do with facts, rather than theory. The Constitution is not an abstraction. It is a living breathing fact, exerting a mighty power over the nation of which it is the bond of the Union.

 

Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slavery , and without an interpreter, although some difficulty might have occurred in applying its manifold provisions, yet so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial, and not a celestial origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery. Slavery existed before the Constitution, in the very States by whom it was made and adopted. — Slaveholders took a large share in making it. It was made in view of the existence of slavery, and in a manner well calculated to aid and strengthen that heaven-daring crime.

 

Take, for instance, article 1st, section 2d, to wit: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 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 including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.”

 

A diversity of persons are here described — persons bound to service for a term of years, Indians not taxed, and three-fifths of all other persons. Now, we ask, in the name of common sense, can there be an honest doubt that, in States where there are slaves, that they are included in this basis of representation? To us, it is as plain as the sun in the heavens that this clause does, and was intended to mean, that the slave States should enjoy a representation of their human chattels under this Constitution. Beside, the term free, which is generally, though not always, used as the correlative of slave, “all other persons,” settles the question forever that slaves are here included.

 

Its is contended on this point by Lysander Spooner and others, that the words, “all other persons,” used in this article of the Constitution, relates only to aliens. We deny that the words bear any such construction. Are we to presume that the Constitution, which so carefully points out a class of persons for exclusion, such as “Indians not taxed,” would be silent with respect to another class which it was meant equally to exclude? We have never studied logic, but it does seem to us that such a presumption would be very much like an absurdity. And the absurdity is all the more glaring, when it is remembered and the language used immediately after the words “excluding Indians are not taxed,” (having done with exclusions) it includes “all other persons.” It is as easy to suppose that the Constitution contemplates including Indians, (against its express declaration to the contrary,) as it is to suppose that it should be construed to mean the exclusion of slaves from the basis of representation, against the express language, “including all other persons.” Where all are included, none remain to be excluded. The reasonings of those who are likely to take the opposite view of the clause, appears very much like quibbling, to use no harsher word. One thing is certain about this clause of the Constitution. It is this — that under it, the slave system has enjoyed a large and domineering representation in Congress, which has given laws to the whole Union in regard to slavery, ever since the formation of the government.

 

Satisfied that the view we have given of this clause of the Constitution is the only sound interpretation of it, we throw at once all those parts and particulars of the instrument which refer to slavery, and constitute what we conceive to be the slaveholding compromises of the Constitution, before the reader, and beg that he will look with candor upon the comments which we propose to make upon them.

 

“Art. 5th, Sect. 8th. — Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections.”

 

“Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

 

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

 

“Art. 4th, Sec. 4th — The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against Domestic violence.”

 

The first article and ninth section is a full, complete and broad sanction of the slavetrade for twenty years. In this compromise of the Constitution, the parties to it pledged the national arm to protect that infernal trade for twenty years. While all other subjects of commerce were left under the control of Congress, this species of commerce alone was Constitutionally exempted. And why was this the case? Simply because South Carolina and Georgia declared, through their delegates that framed the Constitution, that they would not come into the Union if this traffic in human flesh should be prohibited. Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, (a distinguished member of the Convention that framed the Constitution,) said, “if the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain.” Mr. Pinckney said, South Carolina could never receive the plan, “if it prohibits the slavetrade.” In consequence of the determination of these States to sand out of the Union in case of the traffic in human flesh should prohibited, and from one was adopted, as a compromise; and shameful as it is, it is by no means more shameful than others which preceded and succeeded it. The slaveholding South, by that unyielding tenacity and consistency which they usually contend for their measures, triumphed, and the doughface North was brought to the disgraceful terms in question, just s they have been ever since on all questions touching the subject of slavery.

 

As a compensation for their base treachery to human freedom and justice, the North were permitted to impose a tax of ten dollars for each person imported, with which to swell the coffers of the national treasury, thus baptizing the infant Republic with the blood-stained gold.

 

Art. 4, Sec. 2. — This article was adopted with a view to restoring fugitive slaves to their masters — ambiguous, to be sure, but sufficiently explicit to answer the end sought to be attained. Under it, and in accordance with it, the Congress enacted the atrocious “law of ’93,” making it penal in a high degree to harbor or shelter the flying fugitive. The whole nation that adopted it, consented to become kidnappers, and the whole land converted into slave-hunting ground.

 

Art. 4, Sec. 4. — Pledges the national arm to protect the slaveholder from domestic violence, and is the safeguard of the Southern tyrant against the vengeance of the outraged and plundered slave. Under it, the nation is bound to do the bidding of the slaveholder, to bring out the whole naval and military power of the country, to crush the refractory slaves into obedience to their cruel masters. Thus has the North, under the Constitution, not only consented to form bulwarks around the system of slavery, with all its bloody enormities, to prevent the slave from escape, but has planted its uncounted feet and tremendous weight on the heaving hearts of American bondmen, to prevent them from rising to gain their freedom. Could Pandemonium devise a Union more inhuman, unjust, and affronting to God and man, than this? Yet such is the Union consummated under the Constitution of the United States. It is truly a compact demanding immediate disannulment, and one which, with our view of its wicked requirements, we can never enter.

 

We might just here drop the pen and the subject, and assume the Constitution to be what we have briefly attempted to prove it to be, radically and essentially pro-slavery, in fact as well as in its tendency; and regard our position to be correct beyond the possibility of an honest doubt, and treat those who differ from us as mere cavilers, bent upon making the worse appear the better reason; or we might anticipate the objections which are supposed to be valid against that position. We are, however, disposed to do neither. — We have too much respect for the men opposed to us to do the former, and have too strong a desire to have those objections put in their most favorable light, to do the latter. — We are prepared to hear all sides, and to give the arguments of our opponents a candid consideration. Where an honest expression of views is allowed, Truth has nothing to fear.

And now if our friend Gerrit Smith desires to be heard on the other side, the columns of the North Star are at his service. We can assure him that he cannot have a stronger wish to turn every rightful instrumentality against slavery, than we have; and if the Constitution can be so turned, and he can satisfy us of the fact, we shall readily, gladly and zealously, turn our feeble energies in that direction. The case which our friend Gerrit Smith put to us in his letter is a good one, but fails in a most important particular, and that is, analogy. The only likeness which we can see in the supposed case of a bargain with Brown, to that of the bargain entered into by the North and the South, is that there is gross dishonesty in both. So far, there is a striking similarity, but no further. The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was no himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa, and all this to form a Union by which to repel invasion, and otherwise promoted their interest. No, friend Smith, we are not asked to act the honorable part of “Judge Douglass” with respect to this “contract,” but to become a guilty party to it, and in reply we say — No!

AdCast - Ads from the Community

×

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconrichbernatovech:
RichBernatovech Featured By Owner 6 days ago
Thanks for the watch!
Reply
:iconspake759:
Spake759 Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Professional Traditional Artist
your work is great, i really enjoy your line and color work.
Reply
:iconrichbernatovech:
RichBernatovech Featured By Owner 6 days ago
Thanks! I really appreciate hearing that!  :D :D :D
Reply
:iconkodai-okuda:
Kodai-Okuda Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you for watching. :)
Reply
:iconspake759:
Spake759 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I really like your ships and mechs!
Reply
:iconkodai-okuda:
Kodai-Okuda Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you. :)
Reply
:iconleabasan:
Leabasan Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for watching :dance:
Reply
:iconspake759:
Spake759 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
No problem. :) i'm inspired by the Daz3d program. i wish i could learn how to use it for reference in my artwork.
Reply
:iconleabasan:
Leabasan Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, I learned using DAZ Studio via a German speaking Board and I'd be willing to bet that there must be a good English speaking one out there, too... ;)

Funny thing is, I turned to 3d rendering because I couldn't draw a nice picture if my life depended on it (something which you are obviously very good at) :D
Reply
:iconspake759:
Spake759 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
thank you for the compliment. :) after the damage i took to the noggin i have been working hard to get back to where I use to be. And hoping that using the daz program to create the models to help with a reference I can use to do turnarounds and the like. :) i learn better when i have someone showing me how to do it instead of just telling me. esp. when it's computers!
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: