Posted on 03/17/2004 8:23:46 AM PST by Global_Warming
Not for long. But I guess you missed this:
" Between 1868 and 1871, terrorist organizations, especially the Ku Klux Klan, murdered blacks and whites who tried to exercise their right to vote or receive an education. The Klan, working with Democrats in several states, used fraud and violence to help whites regain control of their state governments."
What black rebel soldiers there were -- and there were no more than a handful -- were shamefully treated after the war.
Walt
No.
Alexander Stephens held the same seat in Congress after the war that he had held before the war.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
Walt
US Constitution, Amendment XIV § 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
So you consider all those receiving Confederate pensions and attending Confederates reunions to be liars. Have you no shame? The men fought for their country, and you denigrate their service.
What was shameful was Lincoln wanting to reward black Union soldiers with a free boat ride to Panama to dig a canal.
If memory serves, the Republicans in power instituted military governments in the South, and forced them to rewrite their constitutions, and then approved of their new governments filled with carpetbaggers. Loyal Confederates, with few exceptions, were not allowed to hold public office.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
I know you lied and got caught. Aleck Stephens did serve in the Congress after the war, in the same seat he held before the war.
Walt
The same southerners who implemented those laws prior to the war. The same southerners who held office and supported the rebellion during the war. The same southerners who had supported the rebellion and who held office after the war. The Black Codes were in place long before reconstruction, and the Jim Crow laws were enacted after reconstruction. And both were designed to deny any semblance of rights to free blacks, including those bazillions of free blacks y'all claim served the confederacy so loyally and so well. Southern appreciation for their sacrifice is duly noted.
Check you selective memory again, 4CJ. The Black Codes were implemented before Reconstruction and the Jim Crow laws were enacted by the unreconstructed rebs after reconstruction ended. Sort of a 'thanks for your service, not get back in your place' smack in the head for all those black former confederate soldier you claim existed, huh?
McPherson lacks the credibility to make such a statement.
James McPherson: Left Wing Extremist
Any freeper who has visited a thread discussing Abraham Lincoln, the great war in which he participated, or practically anything pertaining to American history between 1850 and 1870 has likely encountered the posting of commentary by Princeton University historian James McPherson, author of The Battle Cry of Freedom. On any of these threads McPherson himself is a controversial figure. To supporters of Lincoln and the North, McPherson is adored and his book is, as one of his supporters recently put it, a "highly-balanced, factual account." To supporters of the South and critics of Lincoln, McPherson's book is a heavily pro-northern account tainted with political bias and historical revisionism. Though conflicting appraisals of McPherson have been going on between the two sides for years, I only recently became curious about McPherson himself. Having an opportunity to weigh in, I decided to do a little research on the guy's background simply to find out who he was and what his issues were. Almost immediately and with but a single internet search I discovered not only was McPherson a liberal regular in the world of academia, but he also has ties to the left's radical and socialist elements.
Having seen McPherson characterized as balanced, objective, and even implied to be conservative, or at the least moderate or politically neutral, it became obvious somebody wasn't telling the whole story. Accordingly, I decided to compile the information found on Professor McPherson's radical left wing ties and introduce them as a whole into the record.
James McPherson: Defender of Bill Clinton
During the second term of his presidency, scandal plagued Democrat President was impeached by the United States House of Representatives for his extensive criminal activity in office including his obstruction of justice and repeatedly perjuring himself under oath. During the debate over impeachment and the judiciary hearings regarding what to do with Clinton in light of his crimes, liberal academia rushed to the defense of their embattled president. Not the least among them to line up on Clinton's side was James McPherson of Princeton University. McPherson's activities on behalf of Clinton are many:
On December 8, 1998 professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton, who had co-authored with Arthur Schlessinger the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and purporting his actions to have not merited impeachment, testified on Clinton's behalf before the House Judiciary Committee. The Daily Princetonian in the article linked here reported on Wilentz's testimony. The article also mentioned that James McPherson had been invited by the Clinton White House to testify on Clinton's behalf along with Wilentz. McPherson could not testify because the time conflicted with his classroom committments. McPherson nevertheless weighed in stating that the Constitution's requirements for impeachment "mean public offenses" along with the implication that Clinton's offense had not been a public offense.
James McPherson himself signed the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and opposing his impeachment as is documented here. The petition asserted that impeachment of Clinton would "undermine" the United States Constitution and "leave the presidency permanently disfigured." Regarding the charges agaisnt Clinton, it stated "the current charges against him depart from what the (Constitution's) Framers saw as grounds for impeachment." The petition ran in newspaper advertisements across the nation paid for by the liberal group People for the American Way. It was also frequently cited by Clinton's defense in support of his acquittal. When asked about his signature in the article here, McPherson stated that Clinton's impeachment "might come back to haunt the country" and that he had signed it once and would sign it again. The list of signatures on the document reads like a whose who of liberal academia including Arthur Schlessinger and Julian Bond.
When the Senate considered whether or not to remove Clinton during January and February of the following year, McPherson continued to speak out on Clinton's side. Before the vote was taken, McPherson stated that a senate vote to remove Clinton "would cripple the executive branch . . . weakening the presidency for years to come." During Clinton's senate trial, McPherson argued the same line while giving a lecture at Kent State University. To make his case he pointed to Andrew Johnson complaining that Johnson's impeachment had weakened the presidency so much that it didn't regain the strength it had under Lincoln for another 35 years. During the same lecture McPherson continued to make his case on Clinton's side by praising Clinton's rhetorical abilities and comparing them to Abraham Lincoln. According to McPherson, Clinton had the same "gift" of connecting to the people that Lincoln did, and that is why Clinton remained popular in polls at the time.
McPherson continued his defense of Clinton as an historian by accusing those who sought to impeach Clinton of a "personal vendetta." Showing a pro-northern bias, McPherson, in the same interview, contrasted what he called the personal vendetta against Clinton with Andrew Johnson's impeachment, which he claimed was not personal (Johnson's impeachment is almost universally considered a fraudulent show trial over purely political differences between Johnson and an unconstitutional act the radical northern Congress had passed). The quote appeared in McPherson's interview on the World Socialist Web Site, which he appears on frequently and has published several articles. The quote in its entirity states "There was enormous substance to the issues involved in the impeachment of 1868 in a way that I think was totally absent from the Clinton impeachment. That was a personal vendetta, and in Johnson's case, I don't think it was personal." McPherson continues, asserting "The major difference is that the impeachment of the 1860s concerned really serious matters of substance, and the 1990s' impeachment was a more personal vendetta" and making sure to point out that Andrew Johnson was never impeached over what he calls "personal behavior." Elsewhere in the same three part interview, McPherson took jabs at conservatives classifying "groups, like the anti-abortion people" as "extremes on the Right."
James McPherson: the Socialist Pacifica Radio Network
On Nov. 3rd, 1999, Professor James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom, appeared for a lengthy political discussion about the candidacy of George W. Bush on the "Democracy Now" program of the socialist Pacifica Radio Network. The topic of that particular show was a discussion devoted to accusations of white supremacy alleged against Bush by the show's two socialist hosts.
Pacifica radio is a multi-city socialist affiliated radio network headed up by Mary Frances Berry , the socialist Democrat chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Berry is perhaps best known as instigator of the 2000 florida election "voter disinfranchisement" show trial hearings and ensuing "reports" from the commission accusing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris of denying the right to vote to minorities. Berry's report was drafted on statistical models by a former paid consultant to Al Gore. Berry is also known more recently for waging a political battle against George W. Bush's appointees to the commission by refusing to seat them.
"Democracy Now," one of Pacifica's most popular programs, is a left wing political talk show that was, at the time McPherson appeared on the show, hosted by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman. The program is one of the top political discussion outlets for the radical left in America. It has in the past featured among its guests MIT Professor and leftist guru Noam Chomsky, Socialist presidential candidate David McReynolds, socialist and black panther activist Angela Davis, and radical Democrat congressman and reparations activist John Conyers. Pacifica itself is practically the exclusive domain of the radical left. With almost no exceptions, it's guests range from left to far left and its shows are hosted by open marxists and other radicals.
The first host McPherson appeared with, Juan Gonzalez, is an vietnam era activist and organizer who helped found the 1970's era "Young Lords" political movement, a Latino affiliate modelled after the Black Panther Party and formed under the guidance of imprisoned Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Gonzalez' "Young Lords" organization was a socialist latino liberation movement that dedicated itself to the abolition of capitalism, dissolution of the United States military, implementation of worldwide socialism, and assisting "Brothers and Sisters around the world" who are under assault by forces opposed to communism. The "Young Lords" movement staged "liberation" events in the early 1970's to preach socialism to crowds carrying banners reading "Viva Che!." It is also considered one of the organizational precursers of the Puerto Rican FALN movement of Clinton pardon fame.
The second host McPherson appeared with, Amy Goodman, is a socialist activist and was featured as a guest speaker at the 1997 Socialist Scholars Conference of American held in New York. She appeared at this socialist convention along side several noted socialists including Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders and other affiliates of the Progressive Caucus, the congressional wing of Democratic Socialists of America.
Also appearing on the program as a guest with McPherson was Ed Sebesta, a leftist "homosexual rights" activist and rabid anti-confederate campaigner. Sebesta is an extreme south hater who advocates radical anti-southern activism on his political website. Among the positions he supports are boycotting consumer products with the word "plantation" in their names, prohibiting federal cemetary maintanence of confederate soldier graves, a blanket removal of confederate monuments, and the removal of all street names that are in honor of confederates. Sebesta is also a major McPherson fan and recommends McPherson's book as a #1 read for anti-confederate activists on his website. Sebesta has devoted much of his recent energy attempting to brand republicans with the accusation of racism and was on the show with McPherson exclusively to make allegations of white supremacy against George W. Bush. Among the Republicans Sebesta has attempted to smear are then Texas governor and now president George W. Bush, current Texas governor Rick Perry, and attorney general John Ashcroft. Sebesta was a major promoter of disinformation about Ashcroft and the Southern Partisan interview during the Senate confirmation hearings.
McPherson appeared along side the two socialist wackos Goodman and Gonzales as well as Sebesta. During the course of the show from which transcripts are available online, he took an anti-south position. Among McPherson's positions were the assertion of his support for the removal of confederate symbols from the Georgia and Mississippi flags, criticism of Republicans who opposed their removal, and direct accusations of white supremacy against two national confederate veterans ancestry groups. Perhaps most amazing was McPherson's seeming abstention from rebutting the absurd charge of white supremacy being waged against Bush by the other three clowns. Among McPherson's statements from the Pacifica broadcast are the following two excerpts:
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that."
"I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states."
James McPherson: The 'World Socialist Web Site'
A Google web search reveals 27 "hits" for James McPherson on the World Socialist Web Site, www.wsws.org. The World Socialist Web Site is the official internet home of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). The site lists its purpose as providing documents of analysis and study "from the heritage of the socialist movement" (apparently McPherson's many articles on this site are among those documents). The site itself proclaims to be involved in a movement to solve economic and social equality struggles, which it claims are "inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook."
The organization that runs the website, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), is the direct descendant of an international socialist organization founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938. It has affiliate third party political organizations in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany, among others.
The World Socialist Web Site has a profile devoted to McPherson under their history section. McPherson's profile is linked their history index along side their other history pages. It is identified as "James McPherson: Historian of the American Civil War" and is one of many sections of mostly socialist themes. Among the others are "Marxism and the fundamental problems of the 20th century," "Leon Trotsky" and "The Struggle for Social Equality." Among the items under McPherson's profile are several of his publications including a three part exclusive interview with the organization that runs the site.
In addition, a mini-biography of a profile of McPherson is given on the World Socialist Web Site located here. This biography is by David Walsh, a socialist activist and arts editor for the World Socialist Web Site. In it, Walsh clearly identifies McPherson as a friend to socialists, stating "Nearly 40 years ago Professor McPherson arrived at a conception of the American Civil War, based on the work of the best of his predecessors and his own researches, as a revolutionary struggle for equality and democracy and he has not, I think, ever deviated from that view. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that the last several decades have not been favorable for progressive social thought" (my emphasis added). The rest of Walsh's mini-biography lavishes McPherson with praises for viewing the war as a "social movement" of "liberation" and proceeds to quote one of the north's strongest advocates during the war itself, Karl Marx, to show that the granddaddy of communism's view is consistent with McPherson's. The article does concede that McPherson is generally a political in his writings, but nevertheless maintains the title "progressive" - the famous euphemism used by leftists to refer to themselves and their allies in terminology with less inflamatory connotations than "leftist," "communist," or "liberal."
...Now, all that being introduced into the record, excuse me for just a moment while I express my doubts in the objectivity of ANY individual who willingly appears on an openly socialist radio talk show during a discussion devoted to smearing George W. Bush. Allow me to express my doubts in the fairness of ANY individual who actively defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment while accusing those who favored it of having but a mere "personal vendetta." Allow me to express my doubts in the claims of political balance for ANY individual who openly associates with and publishes material on the official website of an international marxist political party that openly advocates the lenin-style revolutionary overthrow of western capitalism. Allow me to also express concerns over the left wing political bias of persons who willfully associate themselves with such an entity as Pacifica or with the socialist activists on Pacifica, or with a socialist political party, or with the Clinton Administration in its defense against the greatest presidential scandal in American history. But that is not near the sum total of reasons that cast doubt upon claims of McPherson's "balance"...
James McPherson: Modern Left Wing and Anti-Confederate Activism:
Aside from his openly socialist affiliations, involvement with Democrat and leftist modern political causes as well as anti-confederate activism in modern times appear on McPherson's record. They amply demonstrate McPherson's anti-southern bias in his own personal politics on things such as the modern confederate flag controversy and his pro-Democrat political affiliations. Broken down by category, here is a sample of McPherson's politics:
McPherson's modern anti-south and anti-confederate biases -
In addition to his calls for the removal of publicly displayed confederate imagery and in addition to his labeling of century old civil war geneology groups such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy as "white supremacists," McPherson's anti-south political biases are both publicly recorded and numerous:
"One's stance on the [confederate] flag, I think, does reflect some degree of commitment for civil rights - or lack of commitment" - James McPherson, quoted by the Associated Press, February 28, 2000
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that." - James McPherson, quoted on the socialist Pacifica Radio Network's "Democracy Now" show, November 3, 1999
Modern confederates are "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." - James McPherson, review of "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz
"For a lot of people, especially blacks, but not only blacks, the symbols of the Confederacy, or memorializing those who fought for the Confederacy, are- the Confederacy is seen standing for slavery and for treason. That is for rebellion against the United States, war against the United States, war to try to break up and, in the minds of those who fought on the side of the North, to destroy the United States. And I think it seems in the minds of many to be a travesty to memorialize them." - James McPherson, December 18, 1995 interview, NPR
The Plain Dealer covered a speech by McPherson in a May 5, 2000 article, reporting McPherson to hold the belief that "it's likely slavery in some form would have persisted into the 20th century" were it not for the war. McPherson continued, asserting that had it not been for the war, this "might have given rise to a South African-type apartheid which could have continued to today."
"[Southerners] need to face up to the historical reality, if only to come to terms with the problems of their own society" - James McPherson, referring to persons who disagree with Northern versions of the conflict's history, U.S. News and World Report, 9/30/02
McPherson on Slavery Reparations -
James McPherson hosted a University seminar to discuss the issue of slavery reparations on April 14, 2001 at Washington University in St. Louis. The event's calendar announcement, may be found here. According to the calendar, the session was titled "40 Acres & a Mule," hosted by McPherson. The event's description reads "This class will address the question of whether decendents of slaves (or other African Americans) are owed reparations for slavery. Prof. McPherson will provide some historical background on the debate after the Civil War about granting every freed slave '40 acres and a mule.'" Details of what sides McPherson took during the seminar are not reported, but it should be noted that seminars of this nature on the reparations issue have been held on college campuses across the nation in recent years, almost exclusively to give a platform and audience to the pro-reparations cause.
McPherson's support of today's liberal Democrats, espousal of left wing policy, and criticism of the GOP -
The February 6, 2000 Baltimore Sun reported in an article about former Democrat senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley that Bradley had "assembled a " futures group" of thinkers who would meet several times a year to discuss the major problems of, and opportunities for, the United States in the last decade of the century." On the small six member list of this "select group" was James McPherson. Others included Richard Rorty, an ultra-left post modernist philosophy professor, and Cornel West, an ultra-liberal "black studies" professor and leading slavery reparations advocate.
"He's very good at creating a positive image. Just last week, he made a quick visit to the fires in Idaho. People appreciate that he cares about these things." - James McPherson, praising Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, August 14, 2000
"There is a real irony here because the Republicans went out of their way to avoid real conflict or the appearance of conflict. The public is aware of that, so what is the point of watching the convention or caring about it?" - James McPherson commenting on the Republican National Convention, New Hampshire Telegraph, August 4, 2000
In the April 2003 edition of "Perspectives," the magazine of the American Historical Association, McPherson published a lengthy diatribe espousing the continuation of "Affirmative Action" in response to the University of Michigan case before the Supreme Court.
According to William Ferris, who was Bill Clinton's director of the taxpayer funded National Endowement for the Humanities, McPherson has been an outspoken advocate of securing and increasing government funding for the humanities through the program.
As reported in the October 4, 2002 Daily Princetonian article entitled "Faculty members sign petition opposing war against Iraq", James McPherson was among 12 of the school's professors who signed a petition criticizing Congress for not asserting its authority over the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. McPherson also authored a thinly veiled "historical" article in 2003 entitled "The Fruits of Preventive War." It was designed to cast the notion of preemptive war negatively by, among other things, associating it with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
What I wrote was: "Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no." What part of the 14th Amendment DON'T you understand? Would a remedial reading class help?
It seems the Yankees had decades of experience to bring to the table when the capetbaggers invaded:
They were chained, and ordered below; where the sight of hundreds of wretches, stolen, wronged, wretched as themselves, only showed them that they were lost forever.No tongue can depict the horrors of that passage. No imagination can form even a faint outline of its sufferings. Physical torture wrought its work. Humanity was crushed within them; and they were presented for sale, more than half brutalized for the brutal market.
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Memoirs Of Elleanor Eldridge", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 37
The trade was made, and we two boys were sold for one hundred pounds a head, lawful money,—yes, sold by a man, a minister of the gospel in Connecticut, the land of steady habits.*** The other thing was, he was fond of using the lash. I thought so then, and made up my mind if I ever was the strongest I would pay back some of it.
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Life of James Mars, A slave Born and Sold in Connecticut", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 61, 62
"I found prejudice so great in the North that I was forced to come down from my high position as captain, and take my whitewash brush and wheel-barrow and get my living in that way."
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Life of Geoge Henry", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 205
In the year of our Lord 1855, I turn my attention to the subject of public school rights. I find myself paying a heavy tax, and my children debarred from attending the schools for which I was taxed.But it's not as if the Yankees changed their ways after the war:
Ibid. p. 208
In 1870 we petitioned the Honorable General Assembly to repeal that section relating to "Equal School Rights," and it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. They failed to report on it.
Ibid., p. 210
What I wrote was: "Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no." What part of the 14th Amendment DON'T you understand? Would a remedial reading class help?
Are you suggesting that Aleck Stephens was not a confederate, or that he didn't hold office in Congress after the war, or what exactly?
You said:
"Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no."
That was a lie. You'd think you'd have enough sense to let it go.
Walt
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Black Codes were actually an antebellum construct that came out of yankeeland. Desiring to preserve their lily white populations, yankee states placed severe restrictions on free black residents than most southern states placed on them. In fact, the Ohio River was a statutory Berlin Wall to free blacks before the war because most of the states to its north barred blacks from settling or even doing business in their territory. As a result, the largest free black populations before the war were in slave states.
As for repayment of the black confederate veterans, that may be found in pension records and the accounts of confederate veterans reunions from the late 19th century through the 1930's when increasingly fewer veterans were still alive. Many white confederate veterans fought long and hard to get pensions established for the black ones, and several sponsored their applications. The blacks were also universally honored at the reunions. There was a large one at Gettysburg, I believe, during which the yankee organizers shunned the black confederates and failed to provide them with housing during the reunion so some southern whites gave up part of the space that had been allotted to them.
Well, we know that Aleck Stephen was elected to Congress after the war, we know that he was an official in the insurgent government, so your statement, you being familiar with these facts -- was a lie.
And you don't have the sense enough to let it go.
Walt
Really.
Well blacks could vote in 5 of the free states prior to 1860. In how many of the so-called seceded states could they vote in 1860? 1865? 1875? 1900?
You make a good Dr. Geobbels for the traitors.
Walt
If that is true (and given your track record of willful deception and your known inability to cite credible sources, I am disinclined to take your word for it that it is), it was also the case that AT LEAST five northern states would not even allow blacks to legally set foot inside their borders prior to 1860 (Source: Abstracts on the laws of the several states pertaining to negroes, Record Group 160, National Archives and Records Administration). Illinois, Oregon, Iowa, and some others all fit in this category and your fake god Lincoln did not object to it when his own state legislature enacted the anti-black provisions.
Part I of the Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The final clause: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I'm not the one that looks like a moron for being able to comprehend the English language.
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.