Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remembering Mary Surratt; Marylander and Southerner
Canada Free Press ^ | Calvin Johnson

Posted on 07/07/2016 7:48:06 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony

The home to the Surratts would be named Surrattsville and today is Clinton

The first woman to be executed in America took place on July 7, 1865. Her name was Mary Surratt.

President Jefferson Davis said;

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

America had not yet celebrated her 85th birthday when the South seceded from the Union in the year of our Lord 1861. Secession was recognized as a God given right that was also exercised by the 13 American Colonies in their separation from Great Britain in 1776 to form the United States of America.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: civilwar; execution; kkk; klan; maryland; marysurratt; south; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2016 7:48:06 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

She was a great lady.

I honor her memory.


2 posted on 07/07/2016 7:59:46 AM PDT by T-Bone Texan (Don't be a lone wolf. Form up small leaderlesss cells ASAP !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan

OK, I’ll bite. Why do you think the woman who hosted the meeting to assassinate Lincoln was a great lady? Or does the question also contain the answer?


3 posted on 07/07/2016 8:01:47 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy Sheehan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

I don’t know if she was “great” or anything, but she certainly didn’t deserve to be hung.


4 posted on 07/07/2016 8:05:20 AM PDT by Trump20162020
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
Secession was recognized as a God given right that was also exercised by the 13 American Colonies in their separation from Great Britain in 1776 to form the United States of America.

You forgot to mention the 13 *SLAVE OWNING* Colonies breaking from the British Union and having an Army led by a Slave owning General from Virginia.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the Founders are never hammered because all of the states practiced slavery. People ignore the fact that the presence or absence of Slavery had nothing at all to do with the fundamental right to become independent of a larger Union.

They grasp this completely as applied to the founders, but the minute the conversation turns to Independence for the Southern states, they instantly go right to objecting to their morality which was common and normal for their time period, just as it was in the founding era.

5 posted on 07/07/2016 8:08:07 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

The question does indeed contain the answer.


6 posted on 07/07/2016 8:08:41 AM PDT by T-Bone Texan (Don't be a lone wolf. Form up small leaderlesss cells ASAP !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
OK, I’ll bite. Why do you think the woman who hosted the meeting to assassinate Lincoln was a great lady? Or does the question also contain the answer?

The more I learn of Lincoln, the less respect I have for him. He is not so very different from another race-obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President and tried to "executive order" his way around Constitutional constraints.

7 posted on 07/07/2016 8:10:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: DiogenesLamp

There were calls for clemency for Mary Surratt but Pres. Andrew Johnson was adamant; “She kept the nest where the egg was hatched”.


9 posted on 07/07/2016 8:27:58 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam. Buy ammo.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Secession was recognized after writing a long list of grievances which the 13 states had suffered under the British Crown. The South was actually in charge of Congress and could force it’s ideas through Congress in most cases. There was no long list of grievances.

The Secession was the political elites attempt to maintain their political power while selling it to their people as fighting for their unique way of life. Most of the South would not have noticed if the slaves had been freed and sent back to Africa.

But the political elite would have been decimated.


10 posted on 07/07/2016 8:33:38 AM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan

Sorry T-Bone, my sympathy’s lie with the Stars and Bars, but I draw the line at supporting assassination.


11 posted on 07/07/2016 8:38:58 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy Sheehan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

It’s interesting to consider that had the North lost the war, or had eventually let the South go their ways, whether Dixie would have become the stinkhole that the Yankees have made, and are otherwise making, of the entire US.


12 posted on 07/07/2016 8:44:23 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

(Oh boy. Get the popcorn!)


13 posted on 07/07/2016 8:53:16 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Last week I was at Andersonville Prison in George where 54,000 Union soldiers were interned Feb 1864 till April/May 1865...13,000 died in just over a year..

across the street there is The Drummer Boy Museum that has a black silk bonnet that is suppose to be the one Mary Surratt was wearing just before she was hung...


14 posted on 07/07/2016 8:56:10 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Of course secession is authorized - just read the declaration of independence. Also of course, you have to win to get to write the history.


15 posted on 07/07/2016 8:57:21 AM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony; All

Actually, she wasn’t the first. The first was Lavinia Fisher.


16 posted on 07/07/2016 8:58:28 AM PDT by j.argese (/s tags: If you have a mind unnecessary. If you're a cretin it really doesn't matter, does it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan
A traitor who fully participated in a conspiracy of assassins, hid their weapons and materials, and whose son -- the treasonous agent of a rebellion against the United States of America -- operated within her home.

She was justly tried and convicted, and fully deserved to be hanged -- and worse.

The only injustice in her sentence is that her son, Bobby Lee, Jeff Davis, and all of the other traitors were not also hung and left on the gibbet for the disapprobation of the general public and the sport of carrion eaters.

17 posted on 07/07/2016 9:01:04 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan
Thus always to traitors:


18 posted on 07/07/2016 9:05:39 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

So in fighting for the right to secede, Lee and Davis (et.al.) were traitors who deserved hanging?


19 posted on 07/07/2016 9:09:45 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Mary Surratt was sentenced to hang, but it is believed that the sentence was to flush out her son John, a Confederate courier, who had been part of the plot to kidnap Lincoln. The belief was that the son would not sit idly by and allow his mother to be hanged. Well, he did. When John Surratt was captured a few years later, he stood trial in a civilian court which resulted in a hung jury. Since the statute of limitations on conspiracy had expired, he was released. John died in 1916, and often made money giving lectures on the Lincoln assassination.


20 posted on 07/07/2016 9:12:44 AM PDT by euram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy
Secession was recognized after writing a long list of grievances which the 13 states had suffered under the British Crown.

The Declaration of Independence describes this list as a matter of courtesy. "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

It is not a requirement, and the right to independence is not contingent upon a list of grievances.

The Secession was the political elites attempt to maintain their political power while selling it to their people as fighting for their unique way of life. Most of the South would not have noticed if the slaves had been freed and sent back to Africa.

That's not true at all. Over the course of the last few months I have discovered that 3/4ths of all US export trade with Europe was produced by the South. Virtually all of these products relied heavily on slave labor.

The North was getting very significant income off of warehousing, insuring, and shipping these Southern produced goods, and they also providing for 3/4ths of all the money to run the US Government at the time.

Yes, everyone would have noticed instantly if the economic conditions produced by slavery were stopped.

This is what that slave produced money looked like in returning imports.

New England was getting rich off of slave labor.

21 posted on 07/07/2016 9:16:01 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

They didn’t fight for the “right to secede.” They made war against the United States of America, which is the very Constitutional definition of treason, for which the justified penalty is death.


22 posted on 07/07/2016 9:38:02 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan

I will always side with the South.

The War of Northern Aggression was a genocide against the noncombatant people of the South.


23 posted on 07/07/2016 9:40:24 AM PDT by T-Bone Texan (Don't be a lone wolf. Form up small leaderlesss cells ASAP !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: euram
Yep. That was an interesting little sidebar. In those days, capture to trial to hanging lasted less than three months. John Surratt would surely had taken his mother's place on the gallows had he turned up in time. Passions were running very high!

He escaped to Canada, made his way to Europe, lived abroad for a few years and was eventually recognized and extradited from Egypt. After two months of testimony, Surratt was released after a mistrial; eight jurors had voted not guilty, four voted guilty.

The other thing which aided him was that this was a criminal trial by the State of Maryland, not a military tribunal which condemned his mother and three co-conspirators to the gallows. A recent Supreme Court decision had declared the trial of civilians before military tribunals to be unconstitutional (Ex parte Milligan).

24 posted on 07/07/2016 9:41:16 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (ObaMao: Fake America, Fake Messiah, Fake Black man. How many fakes can you fit into one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I understand it is a nice knee-jerk reaction to blame everything bad happening to the country on the North, but I think there are enough homegrown liberals in the south who are doing a fine job of spreading the cancer there and elsewhere too.

Every state in the South has them, even the states who present a front of staunch conservatism have them.

And they aren’t transplants.

Just sayin.


25 posted on 07/07/2016 9:46:55 AM PDT by rlmorel (Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

But apparently you don’t have to win the war to write the myths...


26 posted on 07/07/2016 9:47:44 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Yes.


27 posted on 07/07/2016 9:53:45 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

I agree with you, even if I might not think she should have been hanged.

I actually went to Surrattsville High School, and dated a girl who traced direct lineage to Dr. Samuel Mudd who treated Booth’s broken leg. I stood for the bus in front of the broken down wreck of her house (that was filled with trash, broken windows, liquor bottles and such) before it was restored to what it is now, so I know a little about those events.

I find the effort (let’s not forget, being initiated in many southern states by southern politicians) to eradicate the memory of the Confederacy to be reprehensible, and no different from efforts by the Taliban to destroy historical artifacts that don’t contribute to a monolithic muslim historical narrative.

But to say she was a great woman is not a statement I would agree with.


28 posted on 07/07/2016 9:55:38 AM PDT by rlmorel (Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

I was really asking, is human nature ultimately self-destructive?

It certainly seems so.


29 posted on 07/07/2016 9:56:29 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Ah. I didn’t read it that way.

There are many who think human nature is ultimately self-destructive.

I disagree with that overarching characterization. I think self-destruction is a part of human nature, but I don’t think it is the sole determinant of human nature (in my opinion)


30 posted on 07/07/2016 9:59:47 AM PDT by rlmorel (Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Agreed.


31 posted on 07/07/2016 10:33:22 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

In denying them the right to secede, wasn’t it the US government that made war on them?


32 posted on 07/07/2016 10:37:11 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

See previous.


33 posted on 07/07/2016 10:37:45 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Who fired the first shot on US property?


34 posted on 07/07/2016 10:38:53 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

It was not US property. Fort Sumter was within the sovereign state of South Carolina. That was the very core of the issue.


35 posted on 07/07/2016 10:41:43 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Wrong. It was a fortress built by the American people, and administered by the Federal government. South Carolina had no authority under the Constitution to raise a standing army; only a militia. South Carolina specifically recognized it had no such power when it ratified the Constitution, so the fort could not belong to South Carolina.

Traitors to the United States of America shot first. Your non-answer answers to the inadequacy of your understanding and the fundamental untruthfulness of the Lost Causers about their cause.

36 posted on 07/07/2016 10:53:57 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

No.


37 posted on 07/07/2016 11:00:08 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
the land that Sumter was built upon was deeded in perpetuity to the federal government. The federal government financed the construction of the fortifications and manned it as their prerogative and right. The insurrectionists had no legitimate business going anywhere near the fort and firing upon it was a clear act of war.
38 posted on 07/07/2016 11:02:29 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

New England and New York got rich because of their proximity to European trading partners.


39 posted on 07/07/2016 11:02:36 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Your argument about a standing army is not germane. The land on which Fort Sumter stood was the property of South Carolina. When South Carolina voted to secede, it declared its borders sovereign. The garrison at Fort Sumter then became an invading force whose presence could not be tolerated.

There is no provision in the Constitution forbidding secession. However, there IS one enumerating the powers of states where the Constitution does not explicitly assign those powers to the federal government. So if anyone was treasonous in the sense of ignoring constitutional constraints, it was the Union.

And as much as my “non-answer” disqualifies me as a further conversant, I have not resorted to name-calling or personal attacks on your integrity.


40 posted on 07/07/2016 11:11:21 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Show me the deed.

The garrison remaining on sovereign soil after repeated demands that it vacate the fort was the act of war, as were the repeated attempts by the Union to reinforce and resupply the garrison by violating South Carolina’s sovereign borders.


41 posted on 07/07/2016 11:15:27 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
You are saying things which are untrue, and which are known to be untrue, and which defenders of traitors to the United States continue to repeat. If you are genuinely unaware that your preposterous ideas have been demolished repeatedly, I apologize. Now you know. You won't be able to claim that excuse again, and then I will repeat my claims about your putative integrity.

South Carolina deeded the fortress to the US in perpetuity. This is a historical fact. South Carolina had no intention of offering just compensation for the property that they seized.

You asked who started the Civil War. You got your answer: The traitors fired first on the United States Army and on United States territory. You tacitly admit this, by attempting to claim it didn't happen because "they declared it sovereign territory."

South Carolina had no legal basis for the claim that it had a "right to secede." There was a dispute about this between South Carolina and the United States. South Carolina ratified a document which put the adjudication of disputes between states and between states and the Federal government in the hands of the Supreme Court. South Carolina's refusal to abide by the Constitution of the United States -- with it ratified -- was a criminal act, and its claims of sovereignty are therefore a legal nullity at the time the traitors fired on Fort Sumter.

42 posted on 07/07/2016 11:30:14 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Funny nobody at the time thought the Confederates traitors. Do you know how may Confederates were tried for treason? None. President Davis asked for a trial and was denied one.

Do you know how many Confederates were tried for war crimes? One. Col Wirz. He got tried for Andersonville.

43 posted on 07/07/2016 11:36:43 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

You make far too many presumptions for me to address here. Suffice it to say that your assertion of federal sovereignty cannot be substantiated and since that is the cornerstone of your argument, the entire edifice collapses.


44 posted on 07/07/2016 11:37:02 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Nobody in the South did. They still don't. But Americans did, and do regard them as such.
45 posted on 07/07/2016 11:45:39 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
There's no presumption involved.

Did South Carolina -- or did South Carolina not -- solemnly ratify a document on May 23rd, 1788, with the following definition of powers:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Did South Carolina -- or did South Carolina not -- attempt to have its sovereignty claims lawfully adjudicated before its treasonous expedition against the United States?

Those are the only questions at law. No presumption is involved.

46 posted on 07/07/2016 11:53:40 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
From: http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

        "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

        "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

        "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

        "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

        "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.


47 posted on 07/07/2016 12:57:28 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

How can a state that has seceded from the Union be bound by a Constitution that is an artifact of that Union? You’ll recall that the Confederacy established its own Constitution, leading to the inescapable conclusion that it no longer considered itself bound by the Constitution of the United States.

You’re simply restating the crux of the argument. The Constitution does not grant any rights, including the right to secede. But the Enumerated Powers clause of Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment allow that, absent any explicit delegation of that authority to the Federal Government, it resides in the states. Since the Constitution does not expressly forbid secession nor does it delegate that power to the Federal Government, it is a power reserved to the states (or the People).

Your whole defense turns on the notion that states are not allowed to exercise sovereignty. If they are, your argument crumbles. Yet you cannot refute my contention that the Confederate secession was perfectly legitimate, except by invoking a circulus in probando fallacy: the Confederacy could not secede because it was part of the United States, and it was inviolably part of the United States because it could not secede.


48 posted on 07/07/2016 1:14:50 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply here because the constitution defined the mechanism for admission and consent authority for the construction and definition of the states to the Congress in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.


49 posted on 07/07/2016 1:20:51 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I’m unsure about the meaing of the Provision in the second paragraph. It would appear that cession of the property was contingent upon its continued legal use. Certainly, harboring a hostile force within its walls would not be considered legal use.

What is clear is that the state usurped any individual claim to the property.


50 posted on 07/07/2016 1:28:57 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson