According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Dayton, OH branch of the Daughters of the American Revolution will begin the Institute on the Constitution course tonight. In the article, this blog is cited and I am quoted.
According to DAR representatives, they were unaware of the links of the IOTC to the League of the South. However, this information did not sway their support for the course. Unfortunate, because they will be getting a skewed and sometimes inaccurate view of history.
Have friends in the Dayton area? Give them a heads up…
Category: Institute on the Constitution
Institute on the Constitution: Notes on Session 10 – War Between the States and Women's Suffrage Dilutes the Franchise
I have been watching the Institute on the Constitution course on the National Religious Broadcasters network on Thursday nights. Last night was session 10 and covered amendments 11 through 27. I have raised numerous issues with the course over the first nine sessions, and session 10 only added to my negative reaction.
At this point, I am just going to supply some observations about the course from memory. I may do a more detailed follow up next week.
Discussing the 13th Amendment, Peroutka disparaged the Emancipation Proclamation as a political ploy on Lincoln’s part. In his discussion of the 13th Amendment, Peroutka correctly said that the amendment freed the slaves but then added that subsequent actions made us all slaves. He compared the military draft and income tax to the enslavement of blacks. To me, this comparison crudely minimizes the awfulness of slavery.
He had little good to say about the 14th Amendment. Consistent with his status of board member of the League of the South, he make the Confederate case that the amendment was never legally ratified.
Throughout his discussion of the Reconstruction amendments (13-15), Peroutka referred to the Civil War as “The War Between the States.” When David Whitney came forward to discuss his view that the 16th Amendment did not actually authorize a federal income tax, he called the Civil War, “The War for Southern Independence.” These designations are consistent with Peroutka’s view that the wrong side won the Civil War.
Probably the oddest position taken was opposition to the 19th Amendment. Peroutka complained that a woman’s right to vote “dilutes the franchise.” He said he often gets strong reaction to his position (I wonder why) but he explained that a married female voting may cancel out the vote of her husband. He painted a picture of the family being represented at the voting booth by the husband. If a woman has no husband then she could vote, but otherwise he believes women should be represented by their husbands at the polls.
How about that ladies?
There were other things that raised my eyebrows but I need to do a bit more research before I write about them.
Michael Peroutka's Martin Luther King Remix
On Tuesday’s Steve Deace Show, League of the South board member Michael Peroutka said that Martin Luther King did not call for civil rights in the 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. During hour one at 28:46, Peroutka said about King:
He was claiming rights for people that were promised in the Declaration of Independence but never in that speech did he actually call for civil rights. He was a champion, I believe, of God-given rights, what has been perverted and now called civil rights, he didn’t call them civil rights, I believe he was a champion of God-given rights. He said in that address, he made it clear that he wasn’t saying the rights he was demanding originated in human government, but he said that a right to equality before the law is ordained by God, and therefore it is a right the civil government has a duty to protect and defend.
Peroutka then noted that King quoted from the Bible in the speech.
Note the claim that King didn’t call for or refer to rights as civil rights. This is, of course, completely false. Anyone who has read any of King’s speeches would know that he constantly called for civil rights, including in the 1963 speech given at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Here is the segment of the speech where King referred to civil rights:
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.
King was clearly including himself as a devotee of civil rights. King also spoke of the indignity of discrimination based on skin color (“For Whites Only”). However, an article on Michael Peroutka’s IOTC website titled “Discrimination” and written by Frederick Nymeyer asserts, “We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish.”
And then in his letter from a Birmingham jail, King repeatedly calls for civil rights:
I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King repeatedly called for civil rights, especially noting the importance of the Civil Rights Act. King began his speech:
It is impossible to begin this lecture without again expressing my deep appreciation to the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament for bestowing upon me and the civil rights movement in the United States such a great honor.
It is jarring to hear a board member of the League of the South invoke Martin Luther King in such a manner. As I have documented previously, those associated with both the League and Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution revile King on their websites. On Peroutka’s IOTC website, Director of Communications John Lofton proclaims: “Don’t Need Federal Holidays And Certainly Not One ‘Honoring’ The Dishonorable Martin Luther King, Jr. Who Fails His Own Character Test.”
The League’s Michael Hill denigrated King’s civil rights movement in an essay titled: “What Would It Take To Get You To Fight?”
Sadly, our true interests were compromised and sold for a mess of pottage by our so-called leaders a long time ago. For instance, if the South had had real leaders of the people there would have been no second reconstruction known as the civil rights movement.
In another essay, Hill wrote:
The corruption we see today on the Potomac and Wall Street began right away with the Grant administration. Subsequently, we got an empire (the Yanks were just practicing on Dixie), a Federal Reserve system, an Income Tax, the 17th Amendment (which practically destroyed the 10th and States Rights), two World Wars, taken off the gold standard, a Great Depression, another invasion of the South through the civil rights movement (what we Southerners rightly call the Second Reconstruction), the moral rot of the 1960s, sunk up to the neck in the Middle East, three clueless Baby Boomer Presidents (Bill, George, and Barry), the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, a police/surveillance State, and now bankrupted by the Banksters and their political whores in Congress. And I’m supposed to cheer all this on by singing the National Anthem, saluting the Stars and Stripes, and saying the Pledge of Allegiance? No thanks, I’ll pass.
I wonder if Mr. Peroutka agrees with his fellow board member that the civil rights movement was a negative development and a second reconstruction. Perhaps, Mr. Peroutka’s education efforts need to start with his League president.
I doubt such education would help; here is a League of the South press release on King:
Only a sick and reprobate society would elevate Martin Luther King, Jr., and demonize Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The former sought to manipulate white guilt and use the power of national government for the ends of black racial advancement; the latter risked their lives on the field of battle to preserve the true principles of Constitutional government and the integrity of their homeland. To King and his ilk (both then and now), the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are nothing more than words to be twisted in service of the liberal vision of the good life. To Lee and Jackson, and those who honor them, they are the wellsprings of Christian liberty and prosperity.
There can be no compromise between the worldviews of those who follow MLK and those who salute Lee and Jackson. Moreover, there is no way that a man can, in good conscience, pay homage to both sides at the same time.
Does Peroutka disagree here with Hill and the League? Did Peroutka not know Hill’s views when he pledged the resources of his family and the IOTC to the work of the League of the South? According to the League press release, King twists the words of the Constitution and Bible to serve a liberal vision. Has Peroutka left the League of the South’s talking points, or is he doing some twisting of his own?
Mr. Peroutka also said that it is shameful to elevate or denigrate someone on the basis of skin color. I agree and recommend that he read the following articles on his own website.
R.L. Dabney on Civil Government (for the relevant portions, read here)
Discrimination (for the relevant portions, read here)
Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment
Yesterday, I noted concerns about the teaching of the Institute on the Constitution on the National Religious Broadcasters network. Last night, the problems continued during Michael Peroutka’s teaching on amendments two through ten. To bolster his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, Peroutka cited four founders on guns. One of them is a citation either fabricated or falsely attributed to George Washington, two of them were not cited in proper context, and one was cited properly.
Exhibit A in Peroutka’s speech was this quote he attributed to George Washington:
First, I looked for this quote in the digital Papers of George Washington and couldn’t find anything. Then, I found a reference to the quote on the Second Amendment Foundation website. Listed under the heading: “BOGUS, FAKE & QUESTIONABLE QUOTES FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS,” the quote has been researched by the SAF with no success in linking it to Washington. According to the SAF, this is “perhaps the most ‘infamous’ bogus saying attributed to a Founding Father.”
The second quote comes from Samuel Adams:
The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Several sources attribute this proposal to Samuel Adams in the context of the Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution. Adams included this proposal along with others.
A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended, so far as to add the following to the first article therein mentioned, viz.: And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.
And the question being put was determined in the negative.
For a complete picture of the sentiment of the day, it would have been helpful for Peroutka to include the context and the fact that the Massachusetts convention failed to approve this language. Furthermore, Adams’ reference to “peaceable citizens” could be taken as a qualification on the right to bear arms. In his NRB broadcast, Peroutka argues that the founders believed possession of arms was a deterrent to government tyranny. However, it could be argued that Adams was not referring to citizens who were seditious or who did not keep the peace.
Next, he cites Thomas Jefferson with a brief quote:
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The Jefferson quote is taken from Jefferson’s first draft of the Virginia Constitution. However, Jefferson revised this draft in a way that works against Peroutka’s contention. Jefferson’s 2nd and 3rd draft added a qualification to the first draft. Here are all three drafts:
First Draft: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 1950, 344)
Second Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”(PTJ, 1950, 353)
Third Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]”(PTJ, 1950, 363)
As the Monticello website notes, the draft language was not included by the Virginia legislature into the final Constitution. Jefferson, writing these drafts in 1776, was not referring to the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, Jefferson qualified his earlier statement by locating the freedom for freemen to their own property. Although the later drafts undermine Peroutka’s argument, he should have made his audience aware of Jefferson’s final draft.
Peroutka then cites Noah Webster accurately.
The 2nd Amendment is important to the IOTC in that they back local sheriffs and police chiefs like PA’s Mark Kessler who claims the 2nd Amendment is a conceal carry permit and who promote the nullification of gun control laws. While some quotes from founders can be advanced in support of a broad reading, other quotes must be invented or adapted.
In any case, NRB viewers now have some history to unlearn. How will this happen?
Institute on the Constitution: Post-Civil War Amendments Helped Undo The Bill Of Rights
(Note correction regarding the National Religious Broadcasters below…)
Those following my posts on the Institute on the Constitution may have noted that I have only once critiqued the content of the course being offered on Thursday nights at 8pm (ET) on the National Religious Broadcasters network. There are two reasons for this. One, I think Michael Peroutka’s affiliation (board member) with the League of the South and his stated purposes for the course (support the League and prepare people for secession or something like it) are enough to warrant concern. The second reason is that the videos are not available for embedding on the blog. The NRB and IOTC have has rejected my requests for permission to clip relevant portions of the sessions. Thus, it makes clear presentation of the problems more difficult. (Correction: I asked the NRB for permission to clip relevant portions of the IOTC sessions and they informed me that the network does not have the authority to provide such permission since the network does not own the content. I apologize to NRB for misrepresenting their position).
In fact, I have many concerns about the content of the course. Generally, Peroutka repeats many of David Barton’s mistakes. For instance, Peroutka insists that the First Amendment only applies to Christian sects. He quotes James Madison out of context to attempt to prove this and he relies on Joseph Story’s opinion as the last word on the subject. He doesn’t cite other evidence which contradicts his thesis. I have addressed this topic elsewhere. In fact, elsewhere in Story’s commentaries on the First Amendment, he specifically said that “the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” Jews and Infidels were not considered to be sects of Christianity. Peroutka does not cite this section of Story’s commentary.
Last Thursday (session eight), Peroutka began discussing the Bill of Rights and has a curious view of the relationship of the post-Civil War amendments to the Bill of Rights. Peroutka contrasted the Bill of Rights with amendments 13 and following. Concerning those amendments, Peroutka said:
All of those [amendments] acted to break down the walls and expand federal power. They actually helped to undo the work of the bill of rights; to undo the first ten amendments.
While there is a sense in which some amendments may do this (giving Congress power to use legislation to give effect to the amendment), it is also true that the slavery amendments applied the Bill of Rights to millions of newly freed slaves.
Here is the text of the 13th Amendment:
SECTION 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It is hard to imagine how this amendment undid the Bill of Rights. If anything, the promises of the Bill of Rights were extended to more individuals.
I will be watching to see what other concerns Mr. Peroutka has with the other post-Civil War amendments. Given this talk at a meeting of the Maryland League of the South by Peroutka’s IOTC senior instructor and pastor, David Whitney, I suspect he will take a dim view of at least the 14th Amendment.