Machine of Good Government Separating the Wheat from the Tares!

Machine of Government

Good Machine of Government

The Machine of Good Government Created by the Wisdom Imparted to the Founding Fathers of America! I say “Wisdom Imparted to the Founding Fathers of America” because it was not their wisdom, it was the wisdom of God and Christ Jesus our Lord they loaned the Founding Fathers. Not that the Founding Fathers had or gained of their own volition, choice or opportunity!

Reminder to my TeaParty Peeps & Christian Patriot brothers & sisters from our dear forefather Edmund Burke

“When bad men combine the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

Editorial Note… While watching it this week in the hospital, One of the things that struck me when watching the “Killing Jesus” movie from Bill O’Reilly’s historically accurate account of the life and death of Jesus. It was based SOLELY on historical accounts, nothing came from the Bible. This is why I saw it in the Light that I did, because I wasn’t looking at it as an account from the Bible which I love so tenderly, but as a historically accurate accounting of the greatest life who ever graced the earthen soil, and who ever gave of Himself to teach us so much about the way God meant for us to live our lives. O’Reilly and his collaborative author used ONLY historical accounts from people who were actually there.

Looking at it simply from a historical perspective caused me to see it in a New Light. The Leftist democrats today in America, use the very same tactics, rhetoric,, etc. against US on the Right and of “THE RIGHT” that they used against Jesus Christ in His time. It really is extraordinary how they Never Ever Change!

THE LAW OF GOD as it relates to our treatment of personal enemies, is clearly laid down in the closing verses of the Fifth Chapter of Matthew. No other part of the law is so hard for men to obey and obedience to no other part is more necessary in order to make men Christ-like. It is in brief this: Ye have heard that it was said an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, “Resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven.”

The Christian World recognizes this, theoretically at least, as a divine command which is to be obeyed; and whenever a Christian admits malice and personal hatred into his heart, and cherishes them and does not make any effort to expel them, he knows perfectly well that he is no longer in a state of grace, but is in rebellion against God. There is undoubtedly an immense amount of this rebellion in the Christian Church; but that does not change in the least the law of God respecting the treatment of personal enemies. That law is well established and well understood even if it is not well obeyed.

But a question of a different nature arises when we have to deal—not with personal enemies—but, so to speak, with public enemies, with knaves and evil doers, who may be classed as the enemies of all righteousness, through whom all sorts of corruption are brought into society or the Church or the State. These may be frankly, avowedly evil men, or they may be evil while pretending to be good. What is to be our attitude towards these? How are we to treat them as individuals?

According to the commonly accepted idea, the true and heroic soul must be ready at all times to defend all good and attack all evil. It must be utterly unselfish and self-sacrificing. It must be on the alert for the discovery of objects of attack and objects of defense. It must be untrammeled by circumstances and conditions. It must recognize no such thing as mere expediency. It must allow nothing but absolute right. In short, the hero must be a man of war to whom peace must not be permitted till every enemy of right and justice has been subdued.

That under this definition very few heroic souls can be found, goes without saying. Recall your own experience in life and you will not find it difficult to see that you have encountered a good deal of wrong, which you have not only done nothing to prevent, but against which you have not even borne any special testimony. It may not be humiliating to know that we are not heroic souls, as certainly most of us know that we are not; but it is humiliating to live in the midst of evil for the suppression of which we make no particular effort, and to feel all the time that we are perhaps not only cowardly, but also guilty of criminal neglect.

I should be very sorry to say anything which would excuse a cowardly neglect of duty or let men feel comfortable while they permit all manner of wrong to be done which they possibly might prevent. But I am of the opinion that even the holiest of wars ought not to be entered into without discretion and that even for the individual in society, the highest morality permits the free use of the tomahawk and scalping knife much less frequently than is supposed. I wish to throw upon this most interesting and perplexing subject of a Christian’s proper attitude towards wrong as embodied in bad men and bad measures, the light reflected from the teachings of Jesus, the world’s greatest hero, whose precepts and examples alike it is our highest honor to follow. I shall be much disappointed in the result if it shall not appear that the divine Master, whose soul in the presence of evil sometimes flashed with a Sinai-like righteous indignation and at other times was as gentle as a mother with her babe, has not left us some instruction that is not entirely in accord with the Christian world’s commonly received opinions on this subject.

One of the favorite methods of Jesus for imparting truth was the parable. Everybody must admit that His parables present truth in a very vivid and impressive manner. One may easily lose the connection of thought and mistake the logic of Paul’s Epistles. But no one need ever miss the point in one of Jesus’ parables. The simplicity and clearness with which they are expressed cannot easily be improved. They so perfectly reflect human experience in all ages that they are as instructive today as they were when they were first uttered by Jesus. One of these interesting parables is that of the tares and wheat. A certain man sowed good seed in his field, but in the night an enemy sowed tares. When the grain appeared, the tares also appeared. The servants of the farmer were much disturbed at the appearance of the tares and asked the master if he wished them to go and gather the tares up. But he answered with great wisdom, “no, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat also. Let both grow together till the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, gather ye together first the tares and hind them in bundles to burn them—but gather the wheat into my barn.”

Now as an abstract proposition, tares are bad and they are especially bad among wheat. Under certain conditions nothing wiser could be done than to gather up the tares as soon as they are discovered; but, if they are so mixed with the wheat as to be not easily separated, and the destruction of the one is to be the destruction of the other, true wisdom says, wait awhile.

The simple statement of this parable in perfect accord as it is with Jesus’ practice, illuminates the subject we are considering. What is wanted is wheat. The question of tares or 110 tares is of no consequence except in its relation to the wheat. If to root up the tares is to root up the wheat it would be the height of folly to disturb either; and if by possibility the wheat can grow to a mature and profitable harvest in spite of the tares, then it is the highest wisdom to let both grow together. And this truth, so simply drawn from the ordinary operations of the farmer’s field, governments in the exercise of their exalted powers, and churches in their disciplinary zeal and individuals with more of the zeal, of the servant than of the wisdom of the master, all alike will do well to heed.

We may deduce from this teaching the general proposition that we may not do even a right act, nor an act which under other circumstances would be a positive duty, if the outcome is to be injurious to the Kingdom of God, or to express it more secularly, if the outcome is to be destructive of the general good. In other words, Jesus teaches what Paul taught. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. I may do things or refuse to do things on the ground of expediency. I am not required to hit every knave’s head that I see, if as a consequence a number of honest people, including myself, are going to have their heads broken. Human society is a very complex affair. The dependence and interdependence of the parts are so complex as to baffle analysis. Perhaps there is nothing more disturbing to the peaceful working of this organization than a well-meaning moral lunatic who insists on his right to run amuck—who rushes here and there and everywhere, stabbing right and left at all whom he encounters, and who insists also that everybody who does not run amuck with him is a coward and a knave. His fanatic soul never pauses for an instant to consider the possibility of destroying good as well as evil.

It is unquestionable that we are obliged to endure, with what patience we may, a great deal of evil simply because we cannot get rid of it without bringing on others a great deal of undeserved trouble and suffering and imperiling the general welfare. Jesus bore in silence the tyranny and injustice of Roman power as exercised in Judea, over his own people, although the destruction of Roman power and the liberation of the Jews was what the Jews expected of the promised Messiah; and the silent patience of the Divine Master has been a power for good in the world through the centuries far transcending all that could have been accomplished by open denunciation of the Romans or incitement of his countrymen to rebellion. He was a reformer—but not a destructive reformer. The evolution of goodness was what he sought, and his silence respecting many public evils, is suggestive alike of the most sublime patience and of the highest wisdom.

Every thoughtful man, who looks at the world as it is today, must be impressed by the strange blending of good and evil, not merely in the world as a whole, but in its various organizations and even in the character of individuals. No matter how noble may be the purpose for which institutions exist, none of them are found to be perfect in operation; and no matter how grand a man may be in his character, no one is to be found who is not more or less like Nebuchadnezzar’s image–some part of him at least clay, and, therefore, easily broken.

In this mixed condition of human society and human character we are really none of us qualified to pass final judgment upon our fellows and proceed to execution; nor are we called upon to do so. You remember that memorable scene recorded in the eighth chapter of John, where the Scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman deserving death under the law and asked him what they should do to her, and he answered: He that is without sin among you—without this sin—let him be the first to cast a stone at her. There wasn’t any such man in the crowd. They, when they heard Jesus’ answer, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last. And Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst.

If we are not qualified to pass final judgment upon our fellow men, it is manifest that, while we cannot help having opinions as to people’s character, we are under no obligation to express our judgment of men, even bad men as we think, and to vindicate our judgment by our own acts—except so far as Jesus did—and the exception, as will appear later in this address, is a most important one.

In general, established governments are to be obeyed, but there is such a thing as the right of revolution. But this is not an unqualified right. It is not permitted to every dissatisfied citizen to raise the standard of revolt even though the government be unjust and oppressive. There must be a reasonable prospect of success.

Revolution means blood-shed and misery—an awful uprooting of wheat as well as of tares. No nation should be plunged into this recklessly without any prospect of bettering its condition after all its bloody struggles. So that even in matters so large and dreadful as revolutions, the question of expediency is a controlling one; and the would-be-revolutionists are bound to inquire whether, as a result of their plans, more good or more evil is likely to be experienced. And if this is true of conflicts with organized society or government, it is not less true of conflicts with parties, churches, and individuals. Conflicts may be entered into wisely only when great evils are likely to be removed without greater evils being produced. A church suffers from the presence of a disreputable member; but it is a good deal better to let that tare grow till the harvest, than to stir up a church quarrel, generally the fiercest of all quarrels, and root up a great many stalks of wheat. Let both grow together till the harvest, says the Master, lest while ye root up the tares ye root up the wheat also.

The entire history of persecutions in connection with the Christian church is a history of attempts to root up supposed tares before the harvest. The line of persecution is almost unbroken through the centuries—Saul verily thinking he ought to do what he did against the Christians—Catholics persecuting Protestants, and Protestants persecuting one another and Catholics when they got the chance—down even to the early days of New England when the Puritans—not the Pilgrims— persecuted Quakers and Baptists; and the echoes still come to us from ecclesiastical councils which discipline or excommunicate men for differing with their brethren in creed or worship— the power of putting to death no longer existing—and as one travels back over the ground on which these historic events have occurred, it is painful to see that there is much more of wheat wilted and shriveled in the sun than there is of tares uprooted.

No half way measures—says the fanatic. Perfection or nothing. This is all nonsense. It is not Christ-like. Tearing everything to pieces is not Christ’s plan. Because Caesar gets more than he ought, and God less than he ought, “Down with Caesar and give him nothing,” says the fanatic. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s,” says Jesus, even at the moment when Caesar is a tyrant lording it over Judea.

Charles A. Dana was once Horace Greeley’s assistant on the New York Tribune. He exhibited the same characteristics for which he was noted many years as editor of the New York Sun. Any public man whom he had reason, as he thought, to believe to be a fraud or a knave, he attacked most mercilessly. His victims of course writhed under his attacks and they and their friends became enemies of the Tribune. Mr. Greeley stood it as long as he could, but at last he called a halt, exclaiming, “Dana, no paper on earth can stand it to attack all the scoundrels in the world.”

There are a great many people who are glad to see scoundrels exposed and attacked; but there are not very many who wish to join in the attack. They look on with complacency because the attack seems proper enough and they are not in it and therefore no odium attaches to them. It is for this reason that political reform is for the most part spasmodic or a failure. Somebody discovers that reform is needed and he tries to bring it about. The rest look on perfectly willing that he should try and even hoping that he will succeed—but without them. He does try—gets little sympathy and less help—soon finds that the forces of evil are much more compact and better organized than the forces of good—finds himself at last defeated and alone—and retires from the contest with a firm determination that the next man who tries to do anything for public and political reform, shall be somebody else than himself.

When we contemplate the condition of things even in our own country, or shall I say especially in our own country, we cannot fail to be impressed with the undesirable character of much which goes on. Bribery and corruption are manifestly dangerous to the republic. This is a representative government. We cannot meet in mass conventions for legislative purposes as New England has so long done in her town meetings. We choose our representatives. They with the representatives of all the rest of the people make laws, and elect United States senators who help to make laws for the whole country. Now, if the representative refuses to represent; if he is open to offers of pecuniary benefit for his vote; if he will vote for the candidate for senator who will give him the most money or offer him the best place; if he will vote for or against bills for public acts for a bribe, he has betrayed his constituents and set an example which if generally followed would make a farce of government and put all power into the hands of those who are rich enough and corrupt enough to buy legislatures. Such things are done and we know it. They are disgraceful, of course, to the briber and the bribed. But what are you going to do about it? The man who bought the votes has his seat in the United States senate or whatever else he wanted, all safe enough. The man who sold his vote has his money in his pocket or in some other place where it cannot be traced—and he does not feel a bit lonely, for there are so many others who have had their pockets lined in the same way that he has no lack of companionship. Nobody doubts what has been done. Nobody can prove anything, and if anybody did prove anything the matter would be whitewashed and he would have trouble for his pains. Such things go on in almost every state in the Union. They are disreputable, wrong, destructive of the best interests of the country. You regret to have things so; but you are busy and cannot look closely into these matters. If your own representative is guilty you will see to it that he does not get nominated again. You go to the next caucus, and sure enough the unfaithful representative is not a candidate. A new man is up for the nomination—apparently a clean man —one who can be trusted. You are delighted and gladly vote for him, and he is elected—but you learn later that he is the twin brother of the last man. Of course I am not speaking of this particular legislative district in which we are assembled. I need not say that this district, has not been represented recently by that sort of men. I am speaking of what is true in many more places and states than it ought to be; and I am calling attention not to the fact that so much bribery and corruption and trading exist, as everybody knows, but to the apparent helplessness of the people who do not like it and yet do not prevent it. They grumble and complain and call hard names and then let things go till the next election, when they generally go to the polls and help elect a brother-in-law of the twins.

Now the trouble with many reformers in politics is that they are a great deal more bent on pulling up tares than they are on raising wheat, and yet, wheat is the only good thing to be got and it there is no wheat the tares do no special harm. One saloon more or less in Sodom would make but little difference. To illustrate—let me, without offence to any one, say a few words respecting what so many people profess to have a holy horror of—the machine in politics. What is a machine? It is “a combination of bodies so connected that their relative motions are constrained, and by which, force and motion may be transmitted and applied to the production of some desired effect.” In mechanics, nothing better than a machine can be desired. This is the age of machines and a machine is always more than a match for untrained hand-labor.

In almost every state and every city of any size, there is what is commonly known in politics as the machine. It is an organization of men who go into politics more or less as a business. They give time, thought, and energy to it. They all have a common purpose and they work together with a harmony which makes the name machine eminently appropriate. Sometimes they do no great harm—they simply win where the other men fail. The reason that the other men fail is because they are in politics only in a half-hearted way, and they act without concert. When the time for the caucus comes, the machine is ready. It has its candidates for delegates. It knows just whom these delegates, if elected, will vote for.

It knows whom the men nominated by the delegates will vote for. It has a complete list of candidates who can be depended on from the local precinct to the United States senate. The machine has been attending to this business all the time. It is a compact organization, thoroughly disciplined, knowing its own men, able to predict the result, and in most cases sure to win. The dissatisfied element outside, good citizens, reformers, grumblers, loud advocates of pure politics, have no perfect organization, no plan that is worthy of the name, no candidates who are more than half-hearted in the fight, and so to the last everything is all sixes and sevens, a great deal of honest purpose and virtuous patriotism is wasted— not for anything very positive, but mainly to smash the machine—and the machine wins. There is no help for it. The regular army always beats the mob. It pays once in a great while to expose a company of raw militia to the fire of a thousand regulars, as it did on Lexington Green on the nineteenth of April, 1775; but in the ordinary processes of war it is criminal waste of life. And in politics it is hardly less a criminal waste of energy and high sentiment to array against a compact political organization having a definite purpose, an unorganized mass of citizens, without discipline, without leaders, and without plans.

If men want pure politics and honest officials they must give systematic attention to the matter, and not trust to a little spirit of excitement just before election, when in all probability it is too late to do any good. Eternal vigilance is the price of honest legislation as well as of liberty.

No one certainly can dislike the machine in its ordinary sense as a combination for corrupt purposes, more heartily than I do. But a machine is all right if it is properly used and used for proper purposes. And the only way to fight a bad machine is with a good one. If honesty is ever to win in politics, the men who desire it, must take their first lesson in practical politics from the machine and organize to some purpose. And until people who believe in honest legislation can be so banded together as to act with some of the efficiency of the machine, there is very little use in the individual citizen’s trying to pull up tares in the field of politics, except it be for his own moral exercise and growth.

If your idea of a proper caucus is one to which men shall go without any forethought as to candidates, your idea will never be realized. Somebody will have thought about it. If you have not, the machine doubtless has. Organization, concert of action among men of like minds is not only proper but desirable.

If the object to be secured is a good one, it is no worse because there has been an organized effort to secure it. Of course if the object to be secured is bad and the machine works for it, the machine is bad; hut it is so because it is working for evil and not at all because it is a machine. The lesson to be derived from all this is just what Edmund Burke said more than a hundred years ago. “When bad men combine the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” My point is this. Be earnestly active for something good, and not merely active against something bad. Keep sowing wheat, and do not confine your energies to pulling up tares. It is all right to remove temptation from the young by shutting up saloons and gambling dens if you can; but it is better to fill the minds of the rising generation with high ideals of noble living than to spend all your energies in removing temptation. It is even better to have men who cannot be tempted than it is to have no temptation.

Organize then for the attainment of the best things, and not merely for the temporary suppression of bad things. There will be, in spite of all that you can do, a good many tares growing with the wheat until the harvest; but it will be a poor harvest indeed, even if you pull up all the tares, if at the end there is no wheat.

There are those who say that civilization and even the Christian church are built upon injustice and robbery, and there is nothing to be done but to let both go and return to the simplicity of nature. That seems to me a wholesale rooting up of the wheat in order to get rid of the tares. Learning, Science, Literature, Art and Religion have been doing their best for centuries to make the world better; and they have succeeded in evolving from the primeval savage the modern civilized man and from the primitive bestial selfish degradation the modern methodical and systematic care for self, mixed with not a little altruism or brotherly kindness—and now our modern prophets want to destroy civilization and all that it implies, because, forsooth, some people own property which they never earned, and the members of the Christian church, unlike their Master, have every night where to lay their heads. And yet these prophets sleep regularly on just as soft pillows as the rest of the church, and draw their salaries from the accumulations of civilization with as much regularity and zest as if they liked it.

There is no question whatever as to what a man’s attitude towards all recognized wrong ought to be. If he is a true man, it cannot be anything but an attitude of disapproval. But it is a question and a momentous question what he shall do about it. Here comes in the warning of Jesus—”Lest ye root up the wheat also. Let both grow together till the harvest.” Ah! there is to be a harvest, is there? Be comforted, my brother, you who have vexed your righteous soul with the unlawful deeds of the wicked, like Lot in Sodom—be comforted. There will be a harvest, and the harvest comes with great regularity, sometimes to individuals and sometimes to nations. A good many things will be revealed at the harvest. First, it will be found that the tares are not wheat. Second, it will be found that the Lord of the harvest does not value tares as he does wheat, and next it will be found that he does not make the same disposition of tares that he does of wheat. There comes a time, you see, when tares are neither mistaken for wheat nor treated as wheat. Suppose you do not dig up all the tares you see. There is sure to come a time when the tares will be got rid of. The harvest is a great discriminator.

The wheat will be gathered into the barn. It is valuable. It will feed and sustain men and women and children. The tares will be burned—not as fuel—they are worth nothing even as fuel—they will be burned not to do good, but simply to get rid of them. They are worthless—worse than worthless. They must be destroyed, because they are noxious. Bind them in bundles and burn them—and the rascality that you have longed to fight goes out at last in the cleansing flames of an awakened public conscience.

Does all this appear like lowering the standard of duty? Is a true life substantially summed up in minding your own business? Well—a good many lives would be better than they are if they were so summed up. But that is not my meaning. I have not yet said quite all that I have to say. There is one further lesson to be learned from Jesus and it is the most important one.

Jesus was, indeed, wonderfully patient. Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Jesus let Judas stay among the disciples as long as he would. He knew what Judas was; yet, he did not turn him out, excommunicate him, nor do anything else to him of a disciplinary nature. If he, with his perfect character, could stand the presence of such a being, we ought to be able to stand it till the harvest, if it is necessary.

But with all his tenderness towards all classes of men, Jesus never left the wrong-doer in doubt as to his judgment of the wrongdoer’s character. Even Judas knew that the Master understood him.

Jesus treated the woman of Samaria with great kindness. No other Jew would have talked with her. His disciples were astonished when they found him talking to her, for the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. But the woman did not go away with the impression that Jesus approved of her mode of life. When he said to her, “He whom thou now hast is not thy husband,” she knew what he thought of her.

Do not so associate with evil men as to make them believe that you think that they are all right. Jesus never did that.

To the woman condemned under the law, but at whom no man was found innocent enough to cast the first stone, Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn thee.” I do not pass sentence of punishment upon you. But ‘go and sin no more,’ told her what he thought of her life and conduct. God forbid that any one of us should refuse to give a helping hand to man or woman who, having been bad, repents and tries to be good. For them, the message spoken in kindness must always be—”Go and sin no more.”

“He receiveth sinners and eateth with them,” said the Pharisees. Only six days before the crucifixion they said of him as he went to the house of Zaccheus, the chief tax gatherer of Jericho, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.” They would not have done so. But he did. Was he less opposed to sin and crime than they were? But he did not go to be “hail fellow well met” with sinners, whether publicans or Pharisees. He associated with them only for their good, and he never sought to curry favor with them by pretending that he thought that they were on the whole ideal men. The Pharisee who thought he was doing Jesus great honor to admit him to his table and who was greatly disturbed because a woman who was a sinner had been permitted by Jesus to anoint his feet with ointment after she had washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair—receives the rebuke he deserves, high-toned aristocrat though he was. “I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet. Thou gavest me no kiss. My head with oil thou didst not anoint.” I have received at your hands no special kindness and hardly ordinary civility; but this woman at whose presence you are sneering, has with marvelous tenderness, unselfishness and liberality, more than supplied the defects of your self-complacent hospitality. Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins which are many—no concealment of that fact even in the presence of the woman—which are many, are forgiven her—for she loved much.

Jesus was the friend of publicans and sinners, as the Pharisees said. He was a helpful friend, full of sympathy and kindness and charity. But he never associated with them as persons with whose life he was satisfied and whose character He approved. He met them always as one trying to lift them out of evil and induce them to seek a better life. In a word His charity was no bestial indifference to the distinction between good and evil, or between honest men and knaves.

There is a proper time for pulling up tares, and when that time comes, they should be uprooted. First, in the development of our own characters. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; and if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee. Second, in our relations to others—whenever the results will not be injurious to the general good. And third, with nations, whenever humanity demands that the organized power of Christian states shall be used for the relief and protection of the oppressed and down-trodden.

Such a time came 100 years ago to Christian Europe, when Turkey had filled up the measure of her iniquity by the murder of hundreds of thousands of helpless Armenians—her own subjects. But the Concert of Nations of Christian Europe, silent, selfish, jealous of each other, afraid of each other, stood by and permitted the Turk, already drenched to the shoulders in the blood of Armenia, to proceed still further and cut the throats of their brothers of Christian Greece in their heroic but useless struggle. Then was the time for these nations to strike a blow that would have avenged the wrongs of centuries. Then was the time for rooting up tares without the slightest danger of rooting up wheat. Such a time as this now exists in the Middle East with ISIS terrorists, along with Saudi and Iran State sponsors of terror—there still being some in Turkey to uproot. But Christian Europe, because the nations could not agree and a general European war was deemed worse even than the murder of Armenians, reserved its strength for the easier task of dismembering and parceling out China in the East, and left the unspeakable Turk undisturbed and unpunished.

It has been reserved for the young republic (The United States of America) of the West to set for Christendom an example of a foreign policy inspired not by selfishness, but by generosity and real nobility of spirit.

Our country was then engaged in a war with Spain, entered into, so far as appears, with little or no prospect of material gain to ourselves, but solely in the interest of humanity—to protect the people of Cuba from cruelty and wrong heaped upon them for centuries by Spanish oppression. No war was ever engaged in by any nation for more unselfish reasons; and if the God of Battles shall give the victory to our arms on sea and land, as I cannot doubt that He will, my earnest hope is that my country may not forget the high mission of mercy in which it is engaged, and may not, carried away by the lust of power and glory, convert a great contest in the interest of humanity, which ought to be an inspiring example to Christendom for all time to come, into an ordinary struggle for wider dominion and the gratification of unholy ambition. God save the Republic.

Ladies And Gentlemen:

“When a man’s ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” Peace is the desirable condition of life. I can ask nothing better for you than that in the earnest pursuit of the various occupations in which you may engage, you may enjoy peace, and may steadily grow in wisdom and in favor with God and man.

As today you recall the efforts which you have made to secure an education, you cannot but rejoice that your work is done and that the reward is assured. But in the midst of your rejoicing there must come thoughts of those who started with you but have fallen out by the way, and especially of those two, bright scholars and loyal friends, Carl Huhn and Edna May Stock, who had already won honors and confidently expected to stand here with you today, but who already have been promoted to a higher service above. The memory of your dead classmates cannot but chasten somewhat your expressions of joy on this auspicious occasion; and it will come to you many times in your future life as a solemn reminder of what we all at some time or other must meet. But for you the past at least is secure. You have found by your experience here, that wisdom’s ways are ways of pleasantness and that all her paths are peace. So may you find it in the future. And now, as we part, I beg you to accept my heartiest wishes for your happiness and usefulness in this life, and for an immortality of joy in the life hereafter. Farewell.

Sources: Bible, Killing Jesus, The Ariel, Volume 21

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

Obama’s Strategy to Deal with Militant Radical Islam in the Middle East

TheEducatorGodTrust

National Motto [Click to enlarge]

Radical Islam

The Obama Administration thinks we Americans are too stupid to understand the nuances of their thinking, Yet they also think the “uneducated” and “jobless” ISIS members do. Amazing, is it not?

Eric Holder complains “we spend more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it…you know? I mean really, you know, you know! If Fox [News] didn’t talk about this they’d have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me. You know Radical Islam, Islamic Extremism, you know, um, (sighs heavily) I’m not sure an awful lot is gained, by, um, by saying that”

I can assure mr. Holder, Fox News spends much more time talking on what we do about it, than they do on what the administration is calling it. They also talk about how little the Obama administration is doing about it, as well as what should be done about it, with numerous military experts, generals, colonels, special ops, and various other experts, including Muslim reformers, experts on Muslim history and culture, ex-administration officials, diplomats, etc.

However the problem lies with the Obama administration, the reason the question of why Obama, and the people in his administration is even raised, is because of the fact Obama and his administration are doing as little as possible to prevent it. Obama and his administration are doing so little to stop the spread of Islamic extremism, not only are people of his own party also raising the question, even extreme leftist democrats are starting to take issue with it.

I see and hear all of these news people, political pundits etc., on Fox News or elsewhere, who strain their brains trying to analyze why Obama and his administration will not name the enemy, as they exist, they also ask why the admin is not doing more to stop the spread of the militant Muslim fanatics.

The Obama administration also says we need to change the economic outlook of the Muslim terrorists and the ideology that causes them to be terrorists. Wouldn’t that require “occupation” of those countries where the ideology is prevalent, and the control of those same countries economy? For years the Islamic administrations in those countries have failed to stop the Imam’s from spreading their extremist ideology, and have failed to control the corruption of their economies participants or governments who commandeer the relief funds, food, etc. that are given by other countries, meant to go to help the people. It is only reasonable then to come to the conclusion, all of this will require occupation forces, just as it did in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Isn’t it liberals and the democrats who have always accused Americans of being occupying forces or somehow Imperialistic? If the leaders in the Muslim world could be trusted to take on the ideology that creates Islamic terrorists, or have failed to grow their economies in order to benefit the people enough, where they do not turn to terrorism because of their poverty? How else do they propose to accomplish all of the incredibly clever nuanced strategy they promote?

If you look at Obama and the history of his administration, since he took office you can only conclude one thing. I will get to that conclusion later in this article.

Getting into history as I do, I tend to look, not only at the present, but also the past. This helps to give me a better understanding of the why, what, and where of something, so I can come to the correct conclusion, or at least one that is close to being correct.

Obama at the recent prayer breakfast referred to the Christian Crusades when talking about what is taking place in the Middle East with ISIS / ISIL, as if the Crusades that happened 900-1200 years ago, somehow justified the atrocities committed by present day Islamic Muslim terrorists. He also failed to mention, the crusades took place after 4-5 centuries of Muslim aggression, attacks that make today’s Muslim terrorists look like pikers. Note, the day before the prayer breakfast he had a meeting with various Muslim leaders in the White House, who the administration refused to name. Then within days after the prayer breakfast we are faced with a new ISIS / ISIL video showing the mass beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt, by militant Muslim savages who made the ISIS video and titled it. “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.” In the video an ISIS member with an American accent said among other things.

“Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of Al-Sham and Dabiq’s plain, chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time, and today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message. All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together. The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden’s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.”

This coming from Libya where Obama in 2011 took part in military action to remove Gadhafi saying when he did. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Libya, also touted by Obama as one of the successes of his foreign policy in the Middle East. Kind of amazing he doesn’t use the same kind of language when talking about the Islamic terrorists.

The war in Libya was preceded by protests in Zawiya, 8 August 2009 and finally ignited by protests in Benghazi beginning on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd. The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country,with the moderate Muslim forces opposing Gaddafi establishing a governing body, the General National Congress, whose President [Mohamed Yousef Magariaf] came to the U.S. and did an interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation” with Bob Schieffer on September 16, 2012. This interview was in reference to the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This interview was also the same day Ambassador Susan Rice did her infamous five Sunday talk shows blaming a youtube video, nobody ever watched until the Obama administration started blaming it on the video “The innocence of Muslims” whose creator, they promised would be jailed or punished.

In this interview the Libyan President Magariaf] was asked by Schieffer about the attack in Benghazi, among the things Schieffer asked was whether the attack was preplanned, if the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and where the attackers were from. Magariaf told him, yes the attack was preplanned [i.e. not spontaneous or part of a protest], the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and it was planned and carried out by mainly foreigners, and some of them were definitely from Algeria and Mali.

Directly after having the Libyan President on, Schieffer then introduced Susan Rice “And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?” Susan Rice after referring to a non-existent FBI investigation went on to tell him according to the best intelligence they had,  it was a spontaneous protest, brought on by the video and the attackers had no connection to al Qeada.

As a side note: It would seem to me, the best intelligence would come from the President of Libya, who Schieffer had just interviewed before Rice.

What a slap in the face this must have been to the Libyan President, who had just told Schieffer it was al Qaeda, and a preplanned well organized attack. No wonder he and the Libyan government refused to let the FBI in to conduct an investigation until a month after the Benghazi attack.

Add to this the fact Obama refused to assist the fledgling moderate Muslim Libyan government, after helping them depose Gadhafi by bombing Libyan government forces. You begin to then wonder, why Obama helped them in the first place, if he was just going to leave Libya’s fledgling government, military, police, etc., to deal with the Radical Islamic Jihadis after Gadhafi’s overthrow and death, without assistance from the U.S.

We then go back to the Iranian Green revolution of 2009-2010 when moderate Muslim students, business owners, and others rose up against the tyrannical Iranian Mullah’s, and the government they have imposed in Iran. Out of all the moderate Muslim uprisings in around the world that took place after Obama took the presidency, the Muslims who rose up in Iran were truly moderates who wanted to overthrow the radical Muslims in power.

What did Obama do to encourage or help those moderate Muslims during the Green Movement in Iran? Not a thing, not a word of encouragement, not humanitarian aid, no condemnation of the radical mullah’s and their government henchman, nothing. This seemed strange, the whole world was clamoring for him to speak out, give some encouragement, something, anything!

When young people in Egypt started protesting and calling for change in 2011, Obama encouraged them a little, after refusing to for weeks or months. It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood members took over the government in Egypt, that Obama became really supportive of the Egyptian movement. Then when the people rose up against the Muslim Brotherhood led government, Obama once again did little to encourage the protesters or take up their cause, angering many of the Egyptian protesters. This seems strange since the Muslim Brotherhood is known for its ties to terrorism, and other Islamic Jihadi organizations. Then however, you look at Obama and his administrations ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, its associates and members and you begin to understand.

The reason news journalists and political pundits on places like Fox news, keep asking the seemingly asinine questions, like why does Obama refuse to refer to mass beheadings, and other atrocities as Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, etc., it is because Obama does very little to stop Radical Islam. In fact Obama does little to encourage the truly moderate Muslims, take Syria for example, or any of the other moderate Muslim movements. He does little or nothing to encourage, aid, or assist the moderates, and does little or nothing to stop the radical extremist Muslims. Look at Yemen, which just a few weeks or months ago Obama was holding up as a beacon of his successful foreign policy.

Speaking of Syria, we have heard numerous politicians and political pundits from the GOP and the democrats since the beginning of the “moderate” Muslim uprising in Syria: We’ve heard them say, the reason Obama, his administration and Congress weren’t doing anything to support the moderate rebels is because, they are having such a hard time identifying them. Why is it so hard to identify the “moderates”? If the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate, why is it so hard to identify them? When Ali Khamenei the “Supreme Leader of Iran” shouts “death to America” this week, the Obama administration said Khamenei is saying it for “Domestic Consumption”. So what the Obama administration are really saying is the majority of Iranians are militant Islamic Muslims bent on Jihad and the leaders of Iran are really moderates who say these radical things to appeal to the vast majority of Muslims in Iran.

Let’s get back to the comments Barrack Hussein Obama made at the recent prayer breakfast, where he referred to the crusades in medieval times. You’ll notice Leftist democrats and Muslim terrorists use the same tactics, techniques, or same talking points when referring to events, past or present.

Obama’s sympathy is always with the enemies of America, especially the radical Muslim element. Leftist democrats also refuse to call out radical Muslims or refer to them as Islamic, and refuse to condemn Muslims, for what they do in reference to Sharia Law. This is because, leftist liberal progressive democrats serve the same master as the radical Muslims, both groups believe in forcing their beliefs, ideas, views, and ways on others who disagree with them, oppose them, or are part of the general population just trying to live their lives. Both groups also believe in punishing and / or destroying those same people, when those people say, do, or are in noncompliance with the beliefs, rules, etc., the leftist democrats or radical Muslims espouse.

Look at Obamacare that was “forced down the throats of the American people”. Look at what the media, especially the main stream leftist media did to Sarah Palin or any other number of conservative or christian republicans. Look at what they’ve tried to do to Ted Cruz, I don’t care who you are, you have to admit Cruz and Palin are the only ones who have shown they would actually change the way Washington DC works. Not change as Obama did, i.e. more of the same, only on steroids, but real change to the bureaucracy, change that brings it in subjection to the American people, instead of the American people being subjected to the dictates of faceless non-elected bureaucrats.

This leads us back to the news journalists, pundits, etc., mainly on the right or centrists when it comes to politics. The reason people like O’Reilly and others twist themselves in knots trying to understand why Obama does what he does, and says what he says, when it comes to radical Islam; It is because: They can’t bring themselves to believe, the American people actually elected a president who hates America, what it stands for, the principles of its founding, you name it. Let’s not forget Obama and his administrations attacks on conservatives and war against traditional Christian American values and the Bible. You know those Americans Obama referred to among his rich friends as “clinging to their guns and religion”. Funny he has never said that about the fundamental Islamic Muslim terrorists.

Why do you think Obama has done more to stir up racial, class strife, and other grievances  between various groups of Americans than he has done to unite the people and the country? He uses stronger words, and shows greater animation when talking against conservatives, than he ever does when speaking about the Islamic Muslim terrorists! If the terrorists from al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, (or violent extremists as Obama likes to say) If, as Obama says, the Arabic terrorists are not Muslim, and they do not represent the “religion” of  Islam; Why are the U.S. State department, Pentagon / Defense department, and the Obama administration giving the terrorists / enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba copies of the Koran, Islamic Muslim prayer rugs, prayer beads, and giving them Islamic meals, etc?

When I take all of this into consideration, I can only conclude Obama hates America, and as he said he would in his book, he stands with the Muslims, he just failed to add radical, when he spoke of the Muslims he would stand with. All part of that great fundamental change he referred to…

Obama’s strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism is for America to lose, why else would he go to congress to get an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that ties not only the hands of the military, but also the hands of the next president, who would have to get a new authorization 3 years after the American people have become even more war weary in the first year of his / her administration?

Some other things I have noted: Rudy said “Obama doesn’t love America” the media throws a fit because they believe this is wrong or it is somehow saying Obama is unpatriotic. Yet Obama himself called his predecessor “unpatriotic” the media and the democrat party compared him to Hitler, wrote a book about killing him, and said numerous other outrageous things about him personally. Obama himself has numerous times said all Americans who don’t want to be taxed more are unpatriotic. The democrat party have said numerous completely outrageous things about Tea Party participants, conservative or christian republicans, yet you never hear the media throw a fit about it.

You have democrats throw a fit when a republican or conservative call Obama a Muslim or even question that he considering his numerous actions against traditional christians, conservatives, etc. and his obvious sympathy for Muslims. Why do they get outraged when people call Obama a Muslim when they are constantly telling us Muslims are good peace loving people. Then you had Obama say “America is no longer a Christian Nation” yet along with the outrage shown when he is called a Muslim, Obama and the media turn themselves in knots trying to convince the American people he is a christian.

Then we can all remember the Democrat National Convention where they voted 3 times whether “God” was going to be part of their party platform, the majority of convention goers voted “No” and finally the 3rd time amid the majority of the members there hissing and booing, the convention managers declared they had “voted” to add “God” to their party platform. Of course this was during election season and they were trying to convince Americans they believed in “God” and that Obama is a christian.

Why doesn’t the democrat party “own it” why do they not stand by what’s in their hearts. Why will they not admit they hate or at the very least greatly dislike the way America was founded, the principles the USA was founded on, and the obvious fact we were, are, and hopefully will always be a nation where the majority of the people are guided by christian principles. Why doesn’t the democrat party finally just own how they really think and feel? They have been accusing republicans and conservatives of being cowards, why don’t the democrats just own who they are? Cowards by any chance?

Obama is an embarrassment to our historic allies and a malleable dunce to our historic enemies!

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

History of the “Christian” Crusades

Origin of the word Assassins.

Origin of the word Assassins. [Click to enlarge]

Not withstanding the historic problems we have had in the United States of America with Muslim “extremists” attacking, raping, killing, and enslaving our citizens. There is a long history of the same in Europe, Asia, Africa, Russia, the Baltics, etc. going back to the time of Mohammed, who himself was the 1st Muslim Islamic terrorist, murderer, killer and pedophile.  I offer here a short timeline of events that led up to the so-called Christian Crusades, that began when Muslims would not stop their continuous aggression towards Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. The spread and growth of Islam has always been accompanied by the sword, killing, raping, beheading, torture, abuse, etc. Muslims have always been extremists since their inception.

History of the “Christian” Crusades

635 A.D. Three years after Mohammed’s death, Muslim forces captured Damascus where St. Paul was going when he had his dramatic vision and conversion.[Book of Acts 16:9] 460 years before 1st Crusade.

636 A.D. Muslim forces take al-Basra, southern Iraq, largely Christian at the time. Killing, raping, beheading, enslaving and forcing conversions to Islam. 459 years before the 1st ‪#‎Crusades‬

637 A.D. Muslim forces take Antioch near the modern city of Antakya, Turkey where the disciples of Jesus were first called “Christians”. 458 years before the 1st Crusades.

638 A.D. Muslim forces take Jerusalem, the Holy City of both Christianity and Judaism. Killing, raping, beheading, crucifying, & enslaving Jews and Christians. 457 years before the 1st Crusades.

639 A.D. Muslim forces invade Egypt, at the time a largely Christian country, again committing the same atrocities and abuses Muslim “extremists” do in the present day. 456 years before the 1st Crusades.

642 A.D. Muslim forces take Alexandria 2nd largest city in Egypt destroying its famous Great Library in process. 450 yrs before Crusades

650 A.D. Muslim forces take Cappadocia (in modern day Turkey). Killing enslaving Christians & forcing conversions 445 years before Crusades

652 A.D. Muslim forces launch attacks against Sicily, they eventually conquer it in 827 A.D. 443 years before Crusades

668 A.D. Muslim forces launch the first siege of Christian Constantinople (Byzantium), many more were to follow 427 yrs before Crusades

711 A.D. Muslim forces begin the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain) 384 years before the Crusades

715 A.D. Spain completely conquered by Muslim forces (an occupation that would last for more than 700 years) 380 yrs before Crusades

715 A.D. Muslim forces begin to invade Christian France 380 years before the Crusades

732 A.D. Muslim forces finally stopped at Tours, Northern France, by Charles The Hammer Martel, 363 yrs before Crusades

792 A.D. Muslim forces launch a jihad led by Hisham Spain’s Muslim ruler against France Christians killed, raped & enslaved 303 yrs before Crusades.

838-972 A.D. Muslim forces take Frejus near Cannes, use it as a base to raid France & Northern Italy. 257 yrs before Crusades

838-972 A.D. Christian pilgrims to Rome are frequently robbed, murdered and kidnapped by Muslim slave traders operating in the Alps, 257 yrs before Crusades

846 A.D. After nearly two centuries of increasing raids on south Italy Muslim forces sack Rome desecrating the tombs of St. Peter & St. Paul, destroy many churches and carrying off hundreds of slaves. 249 years before the 1st Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 years before Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 yrs before Crusades

870 A.D. Muslim forces capture the island of Malta, Killing, enslaving & torturing Christians. 225 years before 1st Crusades

873 A.D. Muslim forces launch massive slave raids in Calabria Italy, leaving it devastated & depopulated; 222 yrs before 1st Crusades

878 A.D. Muslim forces destroy city of Syracuse, Sicily’s historic city killing most inhabitants & enslaving survivors 217 yrs before Crusades

935 A.D Muslim forces capture the city of Genoa, Northern Italy, Killing, enslaving & torturing the inhabitants 160 years before Crusades

976 A.D Fatimid Caliph of Egypt sends repeated military expeditions to Southern Italy for slaves and booty 119 years before 1st Crusades

1004-14 A.D. 6th Fatimid Caliph destroys 30,000 Christian churches seizing their lands & possessions 90 years before 1st Crusades

1003-09 A.D. Muslim raiders increase attacks on the Italian coast including Pisa & Rome from their base Sardinia 90 years before Crusades

1009 A.D. Muslim Caliph Mad Hakim destroys Church of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem orders Christians to wear heavy wooden crosses, forces Jews to wear heavy wooden calves around their necks. 86 years before Crusades

1010 A.D. Mad Muslim Caliph Hakim orders Christians and Jews to accept Islam (convert) or leave his dominions. Muslim forces capture the city of Cosenza, in Southern Italy Killing, beheading, raping & enslaving inhabitants. 85 years before 1st Crusades

1056 A.D. Three hundred Christians are expelled from Jerusalem and European Christian pilgrims are denied access to the (rebuilt) Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 39 years before the 1st Crusades.

1071 A.D. Muslim forces crush the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert, taking the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, prisoner. 24 years before the 1st Crusades.

1076 A.D Muslim forces (Seljuk Turks) conquer Syria a Christian country at that time Killing, crucifying, raping & enslaving. 19 years before Crusades

1077 A.D Muslim Seljuk Turks take Jerusalem, slaughtering over 3000 Christians & Jews. 18 years before 1st Crusades

1077 A.D. Muslim Seljuks attack Christian pilgrims killing enslaving 1000’s & denying Holy Land access to European Christians 18 yrs before Crusades.

1st Crusade 1095 A.D. Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sends a letter to Pope Urban II asking for help to stop Muslim attacks. the Council of Clermont is formed, Pope Urban II calls for European Christians to defend Constantinople and reopen access to the Holy land, especially Jerusalem.

Lest you think the followers of Mohammed have changed since the inception of the Islamic “religion” here’s a  little note from the past.

1611 revolt Dionysius the PhilosopherDionysius the Philosopher led an eventually unsuccessful revolt against the Ottomans, seeking to establish a power base at Ioannina. Dionysius was flayed alive, and his skin, stuffed with straw, was sent as a present to the sultan at Constantinople. The other principal conspirators were said to be punished in various ways, some were burnt alive, others impaled, and yet others sawn asunder.

Ancient Historian John Foxe in his “A History of the most distinguished martyrs: in various ages and countries” gives us the following accounts; It is amazing when reading Foxe’s accounts, after 13 1/2 centuries the Muslims have done little to change their tactics, both “moderate” and extremists.

PERSECUTIONS IN TURKEY. ACCOUNT OF MAHOMET.

Mahomet [i.e. Mohammed] was born at Mecca, in Arabia, A. D. 571. His parents were poor, and his education mean; but by the force of his genius, and an uncommon subtlety, he raised himself to be the founder of a widely spread religion, and the sovereign of kingdoms. His Alcoran [i.e. Quran / Koran or writings of Mohammed] is a jumble of paganism, judaism, and Christianity. In composing it, he is said to have been assisted by a Jew and a Roman Catholic priest. It is adapted entirely to the sensual appetites and passions; and the chief promises held out by it to its believers of the joys of paradise are women and wine. Mahomet established his doctrine by the power of the sword. “The sword,” says he, ” is the key of heaven and of hell. Whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven him: his wounds shall be resplendent as vermillion, and odoriferous as musk: the loss of his limbs shall be supplied with the wings of angels.” He allowed that Christ was a great prophet and a holy man; that he was born of a virgin, received up into glory, and shall come again to destroy Antichrist.

He, therefore, in his early career, affected to respect the Christians. But no sooner was his power established, than he displayed himself in his true colours, as their determined and sanguinary enemy. This he proved by his persecutions of them in his life-time, and by commanding those persecutions to be continued by his deluded followers, in his Alcoran, particularly in that part entitled, ” The Chapter of the Sword.” From him the Turks received their religion, which they still maintain. Mahomet and his descendants, in the space of thirty years, subdued Arabia, Palestine, Phoenicia,Syria, Egypt, and Persia. They soon, however, broke into divisions and wars amongst themselves. But the princes of the Saracens, assuming the title of sultan, continued their rule over Syria, Egypt, and Africa, for the space of about 400 years, when the Saracen king of Persia, commencing war against the Saracen sultan of Babylon, the latter brought to his aid the Turks. These Turks, feeling their own strength, in time turned their arms against their masters, and by the valour of Othman, from whom the family who now fill the Turkish throne are descended, they soon subdued them, and established their empire.

Constantinople, after having been for many ages an imperial Christian city, was invested, in 1453, by the Turks, under Mahomet the Second, whose army consisted of 300,000 men, and, after a siege of six weeks, it fell into the hands of the infidels, and the Turks have, to this day, retained possession of it. They no sooner found themselves masters of it, than they began to exercise On the inhabitants the most unremitting barbarities, destroying them by every method of ingenious cruelty. Some they roasted alive on spits, others they starved, some they flayed alive, and left them in that horrid manner to perish; many were sawn asunder, and others torn to pieces by horses. Three days and nights was the city given to spoil, in which time the soldiers were licensed to commit every enormity. The body of the emperor being found among the slain, Mahomet commanded his head to be stuck on a- spear, and carried round the town for the mockery of the soldiers.

ATTACK ON RHODES.

About the year 1521, Solyman the First took Belgrade from the Christians. Two years after, he, with a fleet of 450 ships, and an army of 300,000 men, attacked Rhodes, then defended by the knights of Jerusalem. These heroes resisted the infidels till all their fortifications were levelled with the ground, their provisions exhausted, and their ammunition spent; when, finding no succours from the Christian princes, they surrendered, the siege having lasted about six months, in which the Turks suffered prodigiously, no less than 30,000 of them having died by the bloody flux. After this, Solyman retook Buda from the Christians, and treated those who were found there with great cruelty. Some had their eyes put out, others their hands, noses, and ears cut off. Pregnant women were ripped open, and their fruit cast into the flames, while many children were buried up to their necks in the earth, and left to perish.

PERSECUTIONS IN THE STATES OF BARBARA. [i.e. Barbary States]

In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers. The conduct of the Algerines towards them is marked with perfidy and cruelty. By paying a most exorbitant fine, some Christians are allowed the title of Free Christians; these are permitted to dress in the fashion of their respective countries, but the Christian slaves are obliged to wear a coarse grey suit, and a seaman’s cap.

The following are the various punishments exercised towards them: 1. If they join any of the natives in open rebellion, they are strangled with a bow-string, or hanged on an iron hook. 2. If they speak against Mahomet, they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. 3. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive, or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire. 4. If they kill a Turk they are burnt. 5. If they attempt to escape, and are retaken, they suffer death in the following manner: they are hung naked on a high gallows by two hooks, the one fastened quite through the palm of one hand, and the other through the sole of the opposite foot, where they are left till death relieves them. Other punishments for crimes committed by the Christians are left to the discretion of the judges, who usually decree the most barbarous tortures.

At Tunis, if a Christian is caught in attempting to escape, his limbs are all broken; and if he slay his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

Fez and Morocco conjointly form an empire, and are the most considerable of the Barbary states. The Christian slaves are treated with the greatest rigour: the rich have exorbitant*ransoms fixed upon them; the poor are hard worked and half starved, and sometimes, by the emperor, or their brutal masters, they are murdered.

MASSACRES BY THE SARACENS.

Forty-two persons of Armorian, in Upper Phrygia, were martyred in the year 845, by the Saracens, the circumstances of which are thus related:

In the reign of Theophilus, the Saracens ravaged many parts of the eastern empire, gained considerable advantages over the Christians, and at length laid siege to the city of Armorian. The garrison bravely defended the place for a considerable time, and would have obliged their enemies to raise the siege, but the place was betrayed by a renegado. Many were put to the sword; and two general officers, with some persons of distinction, were carried prisoners to Bagdat, where they were loaded with chains, and thrown into a dungeon. They continued in prison for some time without seeing any persons but their gaolers, having scarcely food enough for their subsistence. At length they were informed, that nothing could preserve their lives but renouncing their religion and embracing Mahometanism. To induce them to comply, the caliph pretended zeal for their welfare; and declared, that he looked uponi converts in a more glorious light than conquests. Agreeably to these maxims, he sent some of the most artful of the Mahometans, witTi money and clothes, and the promise of other advantages which they might secure to themselves by an abjuration of Christianity; which, according to the casuistry of Ihose infidels, might be made without quitting their faith; but the martyrs rejected the proposal with horror and contempt. After this they were attacked with that fallacious and delusive argument which the Mahometans still use in favour of themselves, and were desired to judge of the merits of the cause by the success of those that were engaged in it, and choose that religion which they saw flourished most, and was best rewarded with the good things of this life, which they called the blessings of heaven. Yet the noble prisoners were proof against all these temptations; and argued strenuously against the authority of the false prophet. This incensed the Mahometans, and drew greater hardships upon the Christians during their confinement, which lasted seven years. Boidizius, the renegado who had betrayed Armorian, then brought them the welcome news that their sufferings would conclude in martyrdom the next day: when taken from their dungeon, they were again solicited to embrace the tenets of Mahomet; but neither throats nor promises could induce them to espouse the doctrines of an impostor. Perceiving that their faith could not by any means be shaken, the caliph ordered them to be executed. Theodore, one of the number, had formerly received priest’s orders, and officiated as a clergyman; but afterwards quitting the church, he had followed a military life, and raised himself by the sword to some considerable posts, which he enjoyed at the time he was taken prisoner. The officer who attended the execution. being apprized of these circumstances, said to Theodore, e You might, indeed, pretend to be ranked amongst the Christians, while you served in their church as a priest; but the profession you have taken up, which engages you in bloodshed, is so contrary to your former employment, that you should not now think of passing upon us for one of that religion. When you quitted the altar for the camp, you renounced Jesus Christ. Why then will you dissemble any longer? Would you not act more conformably to your own principles, and make your conduct all of a piece, if you came to a resolution of saving your life by owning our great prophet?”

Theodore, covered with religious confusion at this reproach, but still unshaken in his faith, made the following answer: “It is true,” said he, “I did in some measure abandon my God when I engaged in the army, and scarce deserve the name of a Christian. But the Almighty has given me the grace to see myself in a true light, and made me sensible of my fault; and I hope he will be pleased to accept my life as the only sacrifice I can now offer to expiate my guilt.” This pious answer confounded the officer, who only replied, that he should presently have an opportunity of giving that proof of his fidelity to his master. Upon which. Theodore and the rest, forty-two in number, were beheaded.

MARTYRDOM OF TWO LADIES.

Two ladies of distinction, Mary and Flora, suffered martyrdom at the same time. Flora was the daughter of an eminent Mahometan, at Seville; from whence he removed to Corduba, where the Saracen king resided, and kept his court. Her father dying when she was young, Flora was left to the care of her mother, who, being a Christian, brought her up in the true faith, and inspired her with sentiments of virtue and religion. Her brother being a professed enemy to Christianity, and of a barbarous and savage temper, Flora was for some time obliged to use great caution in the practice of such virtues as must have exposed her to a persecution. She was too zealous to bear this restraint long; for which reason she left Corduba, in company with her sister. Her departure soon alarmed her brother, who guessed her motives, and, in revenge, informed against several Christians of Corduba; for as he did not know whither his sister was gone, he determined to wreak his vengeance on such Christians as were present. When Flora was informed of these proceedings, she considered herself as the cause of what the Christians had suffered at Corduba, and having an interior conviction that God called her to fight for her faith, she returned to-that city, and proceeded to the persecutors, among whom she found her brother. “If,” said she, “I am the object of your inquiry, if the servants of God are tormented on my account, I now freely offer myself to your disposal. I declare, that I believe in Jesus Christ, glory in his cross, and profess the doctrine which he taught.” None of the company seemed so much enraged at this declaration as her brother, who after some threats, struck her; but afterwards endeavoured to gain her by expressions of pretended kindness.

Finding her insensible to all he could say, he insinuated, that Flora had been educated in the religion of Mahomet, but had renounced it at the suggestion of some Christians, who inspired her with the utmost contempt for the great prophet. When she was called on to answer to the charge, she declared she had never owned Mahomet, but sucked the Christian religion in with her milk, and was entirely devoted to the Redeemer of mankind. The magistrate, finding her resolute, delivered her to her brother, and gave him orders to use his utmost endeavours to make her a Mahometan. She, however, soon found an opportunity of escaping over a wall in the night, and of secreting herself in the house of a Christian. She then withdrew to Tucci, a village of Andalusia, where she met with her sister, and they never separated again till her martyrdom.

Mary, who was martyred at the same time, was the daughter of a Christian tradesman at Estremadura, who afterwards removed to a town near Corduba. When the persecution began under Abderrama, king of the Saracens, in Spain, Mary’s brother was one who fell a victim to the rage of the infidels on that occasion. Mary, hearing of his martyrdom, and filled with confusion at being left behind by one so much younger than herself, went to Corduba, where, going into a church, she found Flora? who had left her retreat on the same motive. On conversing together, and finding they acted upon the same heroic principles, and proposed the same glorious end of their labours, they agreed to go together, and declare their faith before the judge. Accordingly they proceeded to the magistrate, when Flora boldly told him, she looked on Mahomet as no better than a false prophet, an adulterer, and magician. Mary also told the magistrate, that she professed the same faith, and entertained the same sentiments as Flora, and that she was sister to Walabonzus, who had already suffered for being a Christian. This behaviour so much enraged the magistrate, that he ordered them to be committed to prison for some time, and then to be beheaded: which sentence was executed on the 4th of November, A. D. 850.

Sources; Various writings on history.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams Explain Why Muslims Turn to Terrorism

Jefferson quote concerning the advantages of serving Jesus

Thomas Jefferson concerning the advantages of Jesus’ mission  [Click to enlarge]

Background

The first countries to declare war on the newly formed United States were the Muslim Barbary States of North Africa….From 1783, until the Presidency of George Washington in 1789, the newborn Republic had no strong central authority, and that is when the Barbary pirates struck.

In 1784 Congress voted to send Thomas Jefferson to Europe in order to join John Adams and Benjamin Franklin who were already there.  These three Ministers Plenipotentiary [Ministers Plenipotentiary: a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country.] were tasked with negotiating various treaties with other nations / states that would benefit the United States of America in her infancy. These treaties needed to be negotiated due to the colonies breaking away from the mother countries and gaining independence from Britain in the American Revolutionary War of Independence.

These treaties allowed for transactions of commerce with other nations, and in the context of the Barbary States were negotiated to stop the attacks on American merchant ships, the capturing, ransoming, and enslaving of American sailors by the Musselmen or Barbary pirates {i.e. Muslims] who believed it their god-given right to “tax”, kill or sell into slavery non-believers as the Ambassador of Tripoli told Thomas Jefferson, when Jefferson asked him on what grounds the Barbary state Muslims felt they had a right to attack unprovoked the ships, sailors and merchants from other nations. [See letter from Jefferson & Adams to John Jay dated March 28, 1786, relating their conversation below; According to the appeasers in the democrat party and Obama, Muslim Terrorists have been misinterpreting the Qu’ran for centuries. The Barbary states started attacking vessels of Christian nations and the nations themselves almost since they killed, enslaved and conquered the Roman Catholics and other christian governments in the Muslim Conquests of North Africa]

Before I go further: In the last year I have heard two different ex-jihadi Islamic terrorists refer to what the Islamists taught them. Not only were they taught by the mosques that they would go to paradise and have 72 virgins. They were also taught that if they died while killing the infidel, [non-Muslims] not only would they go to heaven “without judgement” so would all of their family. Now that’s a pretty strong teaching , if you were already of such loose morals, you could kill those who were doing nothing to harm you, it would be a strong draw. For the White House to suggest the Muslim terrorists commit atrocities because of they have no jobs, or they come from poor neighborhoods etc., is just ignoring the facts. The Muslim who beheaded the woman in Moore Okla., had a job, the Ft. Hood shooter had a career. the 19 hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Towers were mainly from rich or well-to-do families. So we can brush that aside, as an excuse for their behavior.  They are motivated by a religion that promotes ungodliness, selfishness and that reflects the basest thoughts and feelings of humanity. They are not motivated by economics, unless those economics help them in their jihadist cause.

If we analyze why this would be a draw to the Muslim terrorists, who without conscience commit the brutal acts they do in the name of their god. It is because they are selfish individuals to begin with, they also are susceptible to their basest lusts. Inspired because of the 72 virgins they will receive after death shows their basic lusts. Never mind all of the women and little girls they have been raping or forcing into marriage, the 72 virgins should be enough to convince people that these Muslim terrorists are motivated by their fleshy. carnal nature. The fact they are drawn by the teaching they will go to heaven “without judgement” shows how they are motivated by selfishness, which is also a part of mans carnal nature.  As I have said elsewhere, the Islamic terrorists are following in the footsteps of Mohammed who was the original and first Islamic terrorist.

The story of Mohammed’s aggression has been documented in detail by his biographers, – surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperadoes, assassinations of opponents, blackmail. He ordered the expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medina, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion  He organized no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

At the Battle of Badr, Mohammed after gaining the victory ordered those slain, who he considered “infidels” to be buried in a well in the area of Badr, as his Muslim followers were dumping the dead bodies of those they had killed, Mohammed is said to have stood at the mouth of the well and naming the dead one by one, demanded of them if they had found the promises of God true, as he had done. “You were a bad kindred to your prophet,” said he; “others declared me true, but you called me a liar and drove me from my native place, while strangers gave me protection.” The Muslim followers interrupted him by asking if he addressed the dead. “They hear me as well as you do”, he replied, “although they cannot answer, and they now find true what I formerly declared to them.” This shows Mohammed was also motivated by self-aggrandizement, which is also a base trait of the carnal man.

I’ve heard various Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others talk about how there needs to be a reformation of, or in Islam like there was in Judaism or in Christianity. One thing about the reformation in Christianity. Christian reformation happened to 1. get the sacred scriptures into hands of the people, and 2, to get back to the simplicity of Christ’ teaching and to follow his example and words. How can a reformation of Islam do the same as the Christian reformation, if people continue to follow example of Mohammed and the Quran? It would seem to me, if you want a true religion of peace, with a man of peace to follow, real reform of Islam would be Christianity! If you have reform of Islam and get rid of all the teachings of fundamental Mohammedeans you would have to discard the Quran, or else you take the risk in the future of young men reading the Quran & once again following the example set forth by founder. The founder of Islam being Mohammed, just how do you reform Islam into a religion of peace when its founder was a man of war? The growth and spread of Islam has always been accompanied by the sword. It is a teaching that appeals to what is base & corrupt in man.

Extract from the Secret Journal of Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 1784

“Mr. John Jay was elected Secretary for Foreign Affairs, having been previously nominated by Mr. Gerry. On motion of Mr. Hardy, seconded by Mr. Gerry,

Resolved, That a Minister Plenipotentiary be appointed in addition to Mr. John Adams and Mr. Benjamin Franklin, for the purpose of negotiating treaties of commerce.

Congress proceeded to the election, and the ballots being taken; Mr. Thomas Jefferson was elected, having been previously nominated by Mr. Hardy.

Instructions [were sent] to the Ministers of the United States for making peace with Great Britain, dated May 30th, 1783.

Instructions [were sent] to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, empowered to negotiate a peace, &c, dated the 29th of October, 1783, May 7th, 1784, and May 11th, 1784.

On the report of the Committee, to whom was recommitted the report on sundry letters from the Ministers of the United States in Europe, Congress came to the following resolutions:

Whereas, instructions bearing date the 29th day of October, 1783 were sent to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, empowered to negotiate a peace, or to any one or more of them, for concerting drafts or proposition for treaties of amity and commerce with the commercial powers of Europe:

Resolved, That it will be advantageous to these United States to conclude such treaties with Russia, the Court of Vienna, Prussia Denmark, Saxony, Hamburg, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Venice, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Porte.

The attitude of Muslim terrorists has scarcely changed since the time of Mohammed. Again, according to the appeasers in the democrat party and Obama, Muslim Terrorists have been misinterpreting the Qu’ran for centuries.

LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONERS [Jefferson & Adams] TO JOHN JAY.

Grosvenor Square, March 28, 1786.

Sir,

Soon after the arrival of Mr. Jefferson in London, we had a conference with the Ambassador of Tripoli at his house.

The amount of all the information we can obtain from him was, that a perpetual peace was in all respects the most advisable, because a temporary treaty would leave room for increasing demands upon every renewal of it, and a stipulation for annual payments would be liable to failures of performance, which would renew the war, repeat the negotiations, and continually augment the claims of his nation; and the difference of expense would by no means be adequate to the inconvenience, since 12,500 guineas to his constituents, with ten per cent. upon that sum for himself, must be paid if the treaty was made for only one year.

That 30,000 guineas for his employers, and £3,000 for himself, was the lowest terms upon which a perpetual peace could be made; and that this must be paid in cash on the delivery of the treaty, signed by his Sovereign; that no kind of merchandizes could be accepted.

That Tunis would treat upon the same terms, but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.

We [Adams & Jefferson] took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  [Note they clarify “nations who have done them [i.e. Muslim Barbary States] no injury”]

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet [i.e. Mohammed]; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslims] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

That it was a law that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprize; that it was the practice of their corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them; that he verily believed the devil assisted his countrymen, for they were almost always successful. We took time to consider, and promised an answer; but we can give him no other than that the demands exceed our expectation and that of Congress so much that we can proceed no further without fresh instructions.

There is but one possible way that we know of to procure the money, if Congress should authorize us to go to the necessary expense; and that is to borrow it in Holland. We are not certain it can be had there, but if Congress should order us to make the best terms we can with Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco, and to procure this money wherever we can find it, upon terms like those of the last loan in Holland, our best endeavor shall be used to remove this formidable obstacle out of the way of the prosperity of the United States.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Paul R. Randall, Esq., at Barcelona. The last from Mr. Barclay was dated Bayonne. It is hoped we shall soon have news from Algiers and Morocco, and we wish it may not be made more disagreeable than this from Tunis and Tripoli.

JOHN ADAMS, THOS. JEFFERSON.

Overview of actions by Thomas Jefferson, the first President to declare war on Muslim Terrorists

Muslims who kept attacking the people of the United States for no other reason than the teachings of their false prophet Mohammed told them too. The Islamic Terrorist Muslims didn’t need the excuses the democrat party, Obama and the liberal leftists in the United States now give them, Muslim terrorists need no further provocation than the fact the United States of America exists, the people in the U.S.A. are not followers of Islam, the U.S.A. is founded on Christian principles, we are infidels and therefore are to be subjugated, enslaved, or put to the sword. It is really that simple, we exist, therefore we are their enemies.

Begin overview:

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect “American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects.” After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000. Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully “endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation.” Jefferson argued that “The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace.” Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. “Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association,” Jefferson remembered, but there were “apprehensions” that England and France would follow their own paths, “and so it fell through.” Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” “From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money,” Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them.” Jefferson’s plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States’s relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is “lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever,” the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli. When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli’s demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: “To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . .” The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli’s pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, “The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship.” In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.

WAR WITH BARBARY COAST ALGERINE PIRATES

The cowardice of the Muslims were exhibited back then, just as it is today. The Jihadists attack only those who are ill equipped to defend themselves or attack only by subterfuge, then they hide behind women, children and civilians. Until very recently the so called moderates had not stood against the Jihadis with the rest of the world. 

Overview of War with the Barbary Muslim States

Congress declared war on Tripoli during the first Presidential term of Thomas Jefferson who as shown above was completely against paying tribute to the Muslims to keep them from attacking American interests. Jefferson wanted to annihilate them. See Thomas Jefferson First Annual Message as President December 1801

While we were thus broadening our territories at home, we were having trouble abroad with no less formidable enemies than Algerine pirates who infested the Mediterranean Sea, and all the coasts of southern Europe. The Barbary States, you know, comprise the countries of Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli, and are formed of a narrow strip of land in northeastern Africa. They are inhabited by Moors, Turks, Arabs, and a sprinkling of Jews. The principal religion is that of Mohammed, and they were sworn enemies to all Christian nations. For years the pirates of the Barbary States, or, as they were generally called, ” Algerine pirates,” had been a terror to every merchant vessel who came to trade with the countries near the Mediterranean. Any unlucky, ship, which found itself near the Atlantic coast of Africa, might see at any moment an odd-looking boat with long lateen sails, swooping down upon her from some sheltered inlet or harbor, where she had lain at watch for her prey. In a twinkling she would sail alongside the merchantman, grapple her, drop her long sails over the vessel’s side, and a host of swarthy, turbaned Moors, with bare, sharp sabres held between their teeth, belts stuck thick with knives and pistols, would come swarming over from sails and rigging, boarding their prize from all sides at once. The merchantman, with a crew untrained to fighting, would surrender. Every man on board would be made prisoner, and carried to Algiers or Tripoli to be held for the payment of a large ransom. If this sum were not paid they were sold as slaves in the public marketplaces.

It is wonderful [amazing], when we read of this thing, to see the terror in which these miserable, half clad pirates held half a dozen European nations. Italy feared them as a mouse fears a cat; Holland and Sweden trembled at the name of Algiers; Denmark paid them yearly a large tribute; the only nation of whom they stood in awe was England. For her, they had some respect, as one of their proverbs, “as hard-headed as an Englishman,” testifies.

When the pirates found America had become an independent nation, they immediately made demands on the government to pay them tribute. The Emperor of Morocco, Dey of Algiers, Bey of Tunis, and Bashaw of Tripoli (such were the high sounding titles of these squalid potentates) all thought they had found a new nation weak enough to submit to their piratical demands. And at first the United States did submit in the most astonishing manner. They sent consuls to the Barbary States to arrange on the amount of money or presents to be given these rulers to buy their favor and exempt our ships from their plunder. General Eaton, an officer who had served in the Revolutionary War, was one of these consuls, and very indignant he wiis at the manner in which his government submitted to the demands of these barbarians. When he called to see the Bey of Tunis, he was ordered to take off his shoes in the anteroom, and enter In his stocking feet. When he approached the bey in the stifling little den only eight by twelve, which served for grand audience chamber, he was ordered to “kiss his majesty’s hand.” “Having performed this ceremony,” says the bluff old soldier, “we were allowed to take our shoes and other property and depart, without any other injury than the humiliation of being obliged in this way to violate one of God’s commandments and offend common decency.”

These potentates of Barbary were constantly begging. They asked for ships, gunpowder, arms, cloth, and jewels from our consuls. General Eaton says, while he lived in the consulate at Tunis, not only the bey, but his minister and half a dozen officers of his court, sent for their coffee, spices, sugar, and other groceries, to the American house, demanding it as tribute. Once the bey saw there a handsome looking-glass, for which he sent next day, and the American consul could do no better than pack it off to him. If he refused to comply with any demand, the bey threatened to let his pirates loose on the American trading vessels. Here is a specimen of the letters sent by this prince of pirates to the Danish consul.

“On account of the long friendship subsisting between us we take the liberty to give you a commission for sundry articles, naval and military, which I find indispensable. I give you six months to answer this letter, and one year to forward the goods. And remember, if we do not hear from you we know what steps to take.”

As demand followed demand, and our consuls found it was like filling a bottomless tub with water to satisfy these fellows, they began to demur.

“When will these demands end?” asked United States Consul Cathcart of the Bashaw of Tripoli. “Never! They will never be at an end,” answered the bashaw, coolly. “Then I will declare war on my own responsibility,” said the consul. And so finally war was declared.

In 1804 the American squadron, under Commodore Preble, was sent into the Mediterranean, and bombarded the city of Tripoli. they arrived shortly after the pirates had captured the American ship Philadelphia. The officers and crew of the captured vessel were taken to Tripoli and a ransom of five hundred dollars a head placed on each man. The Philadelphia was anchored in the harbor in plain sight of the town.

One of the officers on Preble’s ship, young Stephen Decatur, begged to be allowed to destroy the Philadelphia, in order that the pirates might not be able to use her in their war against the United States. Permission was given him, and Decatur took a party of picked men and started on his adventure. He first captured a boat belonging to the pirates which was loaded with a cargo of women slaves they were sending to the markets of Constantinople. This vessel he fitted up and new baptized The Intrepid. She sailed into the harbor of Tripoli one midnight with all her crew, Lieutenant Decatur, except the man at the helm, lying flat on their faces on the deck. The ship was hailed, but her captain gave plausible answers till they reached the side of the Philadelphia. In a moment Decatur and his crew had boarded her, and throwing over the deck pitch, tarred cloth, and all sorts of combustibles, set fire to her. Before the enemy had recovered from their surprise, the Intrepid with all sails spread was outside the harbor, which was lighted up as brightly as noonday by the burning ship. Decatur lost not one man, while the Tripolitans lost twenty, or nearly that number, who were surprised on the ship, and part of whom were drowned from leaping off the burning vessel.

DecaturPhiladelphia

Decatur burning the Philadelphia

In the mean time General Eaton Eaton forms a convention with Hamet, the expelled bashaw of Tripoli, for the subjugation of that government: an army is raised in Egypt, and Eaton appointed general under Hamet: from Egypt they cross a desert 1000 miles in extent, to Derne, a Tripolitan city on the Mediterranean, which they attack and carry, in which Eaton is wounded, another battle is fought, and Eaton again victorious, June 10, 1805: the bashaw offers terms of peace, which are, acceded to, and 200 prisoners were given up.

[graphic]

Lieutenant Decatur

The American valor in this war had the good effect of convincing the pirates that the United States was not a country to be trifled with. They said we were too much like the English, and for the present no more demands were made for either ships or jewels as presents, by these autocrats of the seas.

  On the breaking out of the war between the United States and England in 1812, the Algerines and their associates seized all the American ships that came in their way. On the conclusion of peace, in 1815, the United States’ government determined to put an end to the disgraceful system of piracy by the Muslim Barbary States. An American squadron under Commodore Decatur was dispatched to the Mediterranean. Two Algerian ships of war were taken by Decatur, immediately after passing the Straits of Gibraltar. He then suddenly made his appearance before Algiers.

  The Dey, terrified by these unexpected movements, was glad to make peace on any terms, and a treaty was dictated by the American commodore. The Dey was compelled to make indemnity for the spoliations committed on American commerce, to renounce all claim of tribute from the United States, and give up all the Christian prisoners without ransom. The other Barbary powers were struck with a panic at the fate of Algiers, and agreed to the same terms. Thus the United States of America was the first Christian nation that threw off the disgraceful servitude of paying tribute to the pirates of the Mediterranean.

 The European nations were ashamed any longer to submit to the yoke, and the Congress of Vienna resolved to put an end to Christian slavery in Barbary. In pursuance of this determination, a British fleet, under Lord Exmouth, bombarded Algiers in 1816, and compelled the Dey to submit, as he had done to the Americans.

 The Barbary states after this remained quiet; but in 1827 the French became involved in a quarrel with the Algerines, and in 1830 a powerful armament was sent from France, which took possession of Algiers. The Dey was deprived of his authority, and allowed to go into exile’ in foreign parts. The French established themselves permanently in the city.

A note from the Ancient Historian John Foxe;

It is amazing when reading Foxe’s accounts, after 13 1/2 centuries the Muslims have done little to change their tactics and techniques, both “moderate” and extremists.

PERSECUTIONS IN THE STATES OF BARBARA. [i.e. Barbary States]

In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers. The conduct of the Algerines towards them is marked with perfidy and cruelty. By paying a most exorbitant fine, some Christians are allowed the title of Free Christians; these are permitted to dress in the fashion of their respective countries, but the Christian slaves are obliged to wear a coarse grey suit, and a seaman’s cap.

The following are the various punishments exercised towards them: 1. If they join any of the natives in open rebellion, they are strangled with a bow-string, or hanged on an iron hook. 2. If they speak against Mahomet, they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. 3. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive, or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire. 4. If they kill a Turk they are burnt. 5. If they attempt to escape, and are retaken, they suffer death in the following manner: they are hung naked on a high gallows by two hooks, the one fastened quite through the palm of one hand, and the other through the sole of the opposite foot, where they are left till death relieves them. Other punishments for crimes committed by the Christians are left to the discretion of the judges, who usually decree the most barbarous tortures.

At Tunis, if a Christian is caught in attempting to escape, his limbs are all broken; and if he slay his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

Fez and Morocco conjointly form an empire, and are the most considerable of the Barbary states. The Christian slaves are treated with the greatest rigour: the rich have exorbitant ransoms fixed upon them; the poor are hard worked and half starved, and sometimes, by the emperor, or their brutal masters, they are murdered.

Sources: The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America from the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, dated September 10, 1783; to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789. Published under the direction of the Secretary of State, from the original Manuscript in the Department of State, conformably to an Act of Congress, approved May 6,1832.
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe by Gerard W. Gawalt, Library of Congress online.
Islam vs the United States by Niall Kilkenny, 2009
A History of Africa by Samuel Griswold Goodrich; 1850
The History of Our Country from Its Discovery by Columbus to the Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of its Declaration of Independence. by Abby Sage Richardson; 1875

Copyright © 2010 – 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

WHAT HISTORY TEACHES US ABOUT AMERICAN DIPLOMACY WITH ISLAMIC MUSLIM NATIONS Addressed in 1876

It seems as though our politicians never learn from the past. They continue to repeat the same mistakes of diplomacy with the same odious results. While they continue pay tribute money around the world to Muslim nations who wish our destruction. We the people continue to suffer with the dastardly results of their misguided and treacherous policies.

When you hear someone blaming America for the actions of Muslims and / or Islamic Terrorists, it is simply ridiculous and false. Muslims have been terrorizing, attacking and abusing their neighbors and others since the time of Mohammed, in fact Mohammed himself was the first and original Muslim terrorist. Mohammed was a murderer and ordered others to murder those he took issue with or who opposed him. Mohammed also married and had sexual relations with a 9 year old girl when he was in his 50’s, to say Islam is a religion of peace, is in any way holy, or that Mohammed was anything other than a barbarian is completely false and shows a lack of study and / or understanding of history! Everything the Islamic State is doing now, crucifying, beheading, burning, raping, terrorizing those who they are against is following the teachings of the Quran and following the example to founder of the Muslim, Islamic, so-called religion. It is not a religion, it is a perverse and sick ideology based on the lies of a false prophet and barbarian!

Being a believer in Christ Jesus and God the Father myself, when I want to follow the teachings of Jesus, or understand what I am called upon to do as a Christian, or when I want to follow a “True Christian” example. I do not look to the teachings, actions or words  of other Christians, or those who claim to be Christians. I look to the founder, (i.e. Christ Jesus) of the Christian religion and his teachings, words and actions.

I see the Muslim Islamic Terrorists do the same when they want to understand what their so-called religion calls upon them to do, they look to the words, teachings and actions of the founder (i.e. Mohammed) of the Islamic “faith”.

All anyone has to do to understand why there will never be peace among Muslims, or between Muslims and other people, need look no further than the Bible and the description given there of the fore-father (Ishmael) of the Arab, or Muslim  people. Description of Ishmael: Genesis 16: 11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. [verse 12] And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

The authors of the National Standards for United States History wrote that, “We say that knowledge is power, but we have kept knowledge from millions of children, adolescents, and even college students.” It adds, No reason, it argues, is “more important to a democratic society than this: Knowledge of history is the precondition of political intelligence. Without history, a society shares no common memory of where it has been, what its core values are, or what decisions of the past account for present circumstances.”

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Charles Francis Adams

Charles Francis Adams

WHAT HISTORY TEACHES US ABOUT AMERICAN DIPLOMACY Addressed on Independence Day in 1876 by Charles Francis Adams, US Congressman, US Diplomat. The son of 6th United States President John Quincy Adams and grandson of 2nd United States President John Adams (1).

As early as the year 1785, two American vessels following their course peaceably over the ocean were boarded by ships fitted out by the Algerians, then occupying an independent position on the Mediterranean coast. The vessels were plundered and the crew, numbering twenty-one American freemen, taken to Algiers and sold for slaves.

Instead of protestation and remonstrance, and fitting out vessels of war to retort upon this insolent pirate, what did the government first do? What but to pray the assistance and intervention of such a feeble power as Sweden to help us out of our distress, and money was to be offered, not merely to ransom the slaves, but to bribe the barbarian not to do so any more. Of course, he went to work more vigorously than ever, and his demands became more imperious and exacting. The patience of the great Powers of Europe, whom he treated with little more deference, only furnished one more example of the case with which more audacity may for a time secure advantages which will never be gained by fair dealing and good will. To an American of to-day, it is inexpressibly mortifying to review the legislation of the country on this matter at that time. It appears that so early as the year 1791. President Washington, in the third year of his service, in his speech to Congress, first called the attention of that body to the subject. On the 15th day of December the Senate referred the matter to a committee, which in due course of time reported a resolution to this effect:

Resolved, That the Senate advise and consent that the President take such measures as he may think necessary for the redemption of the citizens of the United States now in captivity at Algiers, provided—(mind you)—provided the expense shall not exceed $40,000.

Congress did not think of looking at the Declaration of Independence, but they passed the resolution. And what was the natural consequence? The consular officer established by the United States in Algiers on learning the result approved it, but added this significant sentence:

I take the liberty to observe that there is no doing any business of importance in this country without palming the ministry.

The logic of all this was, that the best way to keep our people free was to make it worth the while of this ministry to make not them slaves.

The natural consequence was that the cost of these operations ultimately exceeded $1,000,000, and the example had set the kindred Barbary powers in an agony for a share of the plunder. In February, 1802, the gross amount of expenditure to pacify these pirates and man-stealers had risen to $2,500,000, a sum large enough, if properly expended on a naval force, to have cleared them out at a stroke.

No wonder, then, that President Jefferson should presently begin to recur to his draft of the Declaration of Independence. Though never very friendly to the navy, he saw that freedom was at stake, hence in his annual message of 1803 he suggested fitting out a small force for the Mediterranean, in order to restrain the Tripoline cruisers, and added that the uncertain tenure of peace with several other of the Barbary powers might eventually require even a re-enforcement.

So said Jefferson to Congress—but his words were not responded to with promptness, and the evil went on increasing. The insolence of all the petty Barbary States only fattened by what it fed on, until the freedom of American seamen in the Mediterranean was measured only by the sums that could be paid for their ransom. There is no more ignominious part of our history than this.

Driven at last to a conviction of the impolicy of such a course President Madison, having succeeded to the chair of state, on the 23d of February, sent a message to Congress recommending a declaration of war. The two Houses which had become likewise convinced that money voted to that end would go further for freedom than any bribes, now responded promptly to the call. A naval expedition was sent out, and on the 5th of December, nine months after his adoption of the new policy, the President had a noble opportunity of reporting to the same bodies a triumphant justification of his measure. The gallant Decatur had established the law of freedom in this quarter forever.

[Editorial Note: The Founding Fathers had tried diplomacy and appeasement with the Treaty of Tripoli and payments of tribute, much the same way politicians are doing today, all to no avail. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson among the first, finally figured out you cannot appease fundamental Muslims or Mohammedeans; who follow the teachings and actions of the founder of Islam and the writer of the Koran, who changed his writings numerous times during his lifetime to reflect the different circumstances he found himself in at various times. The founders private writings about the potentates of the Barbary States, were quite different than their public ones.]

Mr. Madison tells the story in these words:

I have the satisfaction to communicate to you the successful termination of the war. The squadron in advance on that service under Commodore Decatur lost not a moment after its arrival in the Mediterranean in seeking the naval force of the enemy then cruising in that sea, and succeeded in capturing two of his ships. The high character of the American commander was brilliantly sustained on the occasion, who brought his own ship into close action with that of his adversary. Having prepared the way by this demonstration of American skill and prowess, he hastened to the port of Algiers, where peace was promptly yielded to his victorious force. In the terms stipulated, the right and honor of the United States were particularly consulted by a perpetual relinquishment by the Dey (Dey is the title given the rulers of the Regency of Algiers or Algeria and Tripoli under the Ottoman Empire) of all pretense of tribute from them.

The Dey subsequently betrayed his inclination to break the treaty, and ventured to demand a renewal of the annual tribute which had been so weakly yielded ; but the hour had passed for listening to feeble counsels. The final answer was a declaration that the United States preferred war to tribute, and freedom to slavery. They therefore insisted upon the observation of the treaty, which abolished forever the right to tribute or to the enslaving of American citizens.

There never has been since a question about the navigation of the Mediterranean, free from all danger of the loss of personal freedom. It is due to the Government of Great Britain to add that, following up this example, Lord Exmouth with his fleet at last put a final stop to all further pretenses of these barbarians to annoy the navigation of that sea. France has since occupied the kingdom of Algiers, and the abolition of slavery there was one of its early decrees. Thus has happened the liberation of that superb region of the world, the nursery of more of its civilization than any other, from all further danger of relapsing into barbarism. And America may fairly claim the credit of having initiated in modern times the law of personal freedom over the surface of that classical sea.

I have now done with the second example of the progress of the great principle enunciated in the celebrated scroll set forth a hundred years ago. America has contributed greatly to this result, but a moment was rapidly approaching when her agency was to be invoked in a region much nearer home. The younger generations now coming into life will doubtless be astonished to learn that not much more than a half a century ago there still survived a class of men harbored in the West Indies, successors of the bold buccaneers who, in the seventeenth century, became the terror to the navigation of those seas. They will wonder still more when I tell them that both ships and men were not only harbored in some ports of the United States, but were actually fitted out with a view to the plunder that might be levied upon the legitimate trade pursued by their own countrymen as well as people of all other nations, in and around the islands of the Caribbean Sea. That I am not exaggerating in this statement, I shall show by merely reading to you a short extract from a report made by a committee of the House of Representatives of the United States in the year 1821:

“The extent,” it says, ” to which the system of plunder is carried in the West India seas and Gulf of Mexico is truly alarming, and calls imperiously for the prompt and efficient interposition of the General Government. Some fresh instance of the atrocity with which the pirates infesting these seas carry on their depredations, ACCOMPANIED, TOO, BY THE INDISCRIMINATE MASSACRE OF THE DEFENSELESS AND UNOFFENDING, is brought by almost every mail— so that the intercourse between the northern and southern sections of the Union is almost cut off”

My friends, this picture, painted from an official source, dates back little more than fifty years ago! Could we believe it as possible that liberty and life guaranteed by our solemn declaration of 1776 should have been found so insecure in our own immediate neighborhood, at a time, too, when we were boasting in thousands of orations, on this our anniversary, of the great progress we had made in securing both against violence? And the worst of it all was that some even of our own countrymen should have been suspected of being privy to such raids. I shall touch this matter no further than to say that not long afterward adequate preparations were made to remove this pestilent annoyance, and to re-establish perfect freedom all over these waters, This work was so effectively performed in 1824, that from that time to this personal liberty has been as secure there as in any other best protected part of the globe.

Think_Stupid

Added because they do think we are stupid

Footnote: More on Charles Francis Adams, he spent much of his early life traveling with his parents in Europe. He returned in his adolescence to attend school in Boston, Massachusetts, graduating from Harvard University in 1825. He was chosen by Daniel Webster as a law student and while learning his trade wrote articles for the “North American Review.” After a few years in law he turned his hand to politics serving in both the Massachusetts House and Senate. In 1848, he made a run for the Vice Presidency on the Free Soil Party ticket. After losing this election he turned his hand to writing, publishing works of social commentary and as well as works about his grandfather. He eventually made it to Washington, DC ten years later, being elected as a Republican to represent Massachusetts’ 3rd District in the United States House of Representative in 1859. A month after the Civil War started, in May 1861 he was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln to the crucial position of United States Ambassador to England, a position previously held by his grandfather. Charles F. Adams proved to be an excellent choice for this position; his skills helped keep the British from backing the Confederacy during the Civil War thus helping to ensure a Union victory. He remained in England as the ambassador until 1868, and later returned to England in 1871 as a part of a special envoy that successfully negotiated American Civil War damage claims against England (the so-called “Alabama Claims”, named for the Confederate commerce raider “CSS Alabama”). Adams changed political parties several times during his career and at one point considered a run for the Presidency under a new political party called the Liberal Republicans. After what he later conceded was a half hearted attempt to gain their nomination in 1872, he lost out to Horace Greeley. Offers were made again to him in 1876 by another party, but he turned these down without consideration. He also turned down a nomination for the Massachusetts Governorship. He retired to Boston to take up his career again as a writer focusing on the papers of his father. He also served as the chair of the Board of Overseers for Harvard University. Adams’ personal life, was, by his report, rewarding. While the Adamses were famous and respected, they did not necessarily have wealth. With his marriage to shipping heiress Abigail Brooks, Adams brought this into the family. He was able to use wealth obtained through her to remodel the family home and establish the first Presidential Library on behalf of his father and grandfather. He and Abigail had six children. Among them historian Brooks Adams, writer Henry Adams, and Civil War General and railroad executive Charles Francis, Jr.

See also:
Wide Spread And Growing Corruption In The Public Service Of The States And Nation
Joseph Baldwin: Address 1892, to National Teachers Association in New York
THE BEACON FIRES OF LIBERTY by Hon. George Lear July 4, 1876
THE GENIUS OF AMERICA by Hon. Dr. Felix R. Brunot July 4, 1876
True American Patriotism Defined by Hon. Curtis Guild and H. F. Kinnerney 1876
PATRIOT SONS OF PATRIOT SIRES by Rev. Samuel Francis Smith 1808-1895
A REPUBLIC! A LIVING BREATHING CONSTITUTION DEFINED! by Alphonse De Lamartine 1790-1869
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS by Senator Edward D. Baker 1811-1861