The tragic shooting of nine people in a Charleston, South Carolina church is having a ripple effect when it comes to history. First, the liberal, progressive, left racists attacked the Confederate battle flag, calling it a symbol of racism, slavery and oppression. Next, these individuals attacked Confederate monuments, declaring those a reminder of slavery as it honored those who gave their lives “defending” slavery. Now, one of the founding documents of this nation, the Constitution of the united States of America, comes under attack by former University of Maryland Professor Henry Bain.
Bain, who penned an article that has run in several newspapers across the country, called for a “revision” of the Constitution to remove portions he finds “immoral and outdated.” In his article, this copy appearing in The Detroit News, Bain intimated the Constitution was another symbol of Confederate ideology.
South Carolina’s battle flag may soon come down from the capital flagpole, but other symbols of the Confederacy’s ideology remain in place.
For example, consider the US Constitution, which is another kind of symbol as well as law.
All copies of the Constitution promulgate detailed instructions for the recapture of slaves who have run away from their owners. They also specify that slaves are to be counted as three-fifths of a person in the Census, giving a boost to the slave-owning states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
Bain, in this paragraph, is referencing Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3 and Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 respectively. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments supersede these paragraphs. In correction to Bain’s assertion, “the Confederacy” ideology, whatever that is supposed to be in Bain’s opinion, had zero influence on the US Constitution, ratified in 1787 with the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791. Moreover, to be clear and put a stop to this “northern superiority” of one Henry Bain, the northern states participated in slavery as well; many “businessmen grew rich on the slave trade and investments in southern plantations.” “By 1860, [the slave population] had reached nearly 4 million, with more than half living in the cotton-producing states of the South.” The remainder lived in the North.
Moreover, the original thirteen states ratified the US Constitution, which at the time included New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The “north” consisted of nine states while the “south” weighed in with only four. The “north/south” divide occurred during the War to Enslave the States, not during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. So, where is that “confederate ideology” Bain alludes to supposed to be, as he certainly does not recognize the ideology as states’ rights being superior to the created federal government?
Bain continues on suggesting that parts of the Constitution contributed to the tragic shooting in Charleston.
One might justify this presentation of our national charter by saying that it commemorates an earlier time or instructs students on the nation’s political history. That kind of thinking has prevailed for a long time in Charleston, only recently yielding in the face of an atrocity.
First, the US Constitution is more than a “national charter.” It is the Supreme Law of the Land. The States created the federal government to conduct business common to and on behalf of all the States. Second, there remains no problem with the organization of the Constitution as it establishes our form of government, defines and limits the power of the federal government to those enumerated, defines the power and limits of the judiciary, and establishes superiority of the states over the created “central” government. Nowhere does the Constitution “instruct” anyone on US political history. He invents blaming portions of the Constitution for the Charleston shooting. In typical liberal, progressive, leftist fashion, anything and everything is to blame for the tragic shooting in Charleston, except the individual who perpetrated the crime.
Bain offers a solution for what he believes are “problems” with the Constitution.
We would all be better off if all such language were consigned to the back of the document, and Americans were presented with a modern constitutional text that truly portrays our system of government as it exists in the 21st century — a Constitution that deserves to be read aloud each year when the House of Representatives begins its session.
Mr. Bain takes it upon himself to speak for all Americans when he should only speak for himself. The Constitution is organized appropriately — each section deals with the branches of government, the States, proposing of amendments, debt/treaties/oaths of civil officers and ratification — and deserves to be read aloud, as is, each year when the House and Senate begins their sessions. Suggesting that Americans be “presented with a modern constitutional text that truly portrays our system of government as it exists in the 21st century” is to suggest a rewrite to reflect a bureaucratic oligarchy, which is the unlawful, unconstitutional way the federal government currently functions. Again, this is typical for liberal, progressive, leftist “professors” working in government indoctrination centers.
He justifies his position as follows:
Americans need a straightforward, well-organized statement of American constitutional government, enabling readers to learn about the Constitution from its own words. In my own work, I have ended the constitutional text with a chapter titled, “The Constitution of the Past,” in which appear all references to slavery and other egregious or at least embarrassing episodes of our history, such as Prohibition.
Also included are many long-obsolete housekeeping clauses, like the one that would’ve allowed President Harry S. Truman to run for a third term.
Of course, Henry Bain suggests this as he has already done a “rewrite,” which is contained in his new book, “The Constitution of the United States of America. Modern Edition. Rearranged and Edited for Ease of Reading.” According to one reviewer, modern terminology is included at the end of each section. As most are aware, Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines the actual meanings of the words used in the Constitution. Using “modern terminology” or definitions changes the meaning of clauses contained therein. The intent of the framers is contained in the Federalist Papers, which removes any further “confusion” anyone might possess.
One wonders where this so-called professor gets his information. In the past, elementary school students learned about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Studies that are more detailed occurred in later grade years. In fact, the authors of the Constitution wrote it in simplistic language for the masses to understand being that it is the people who are the keepers of government, not the other way around. To suggest that the average American cannot understand the Constitution in its present form belittles and degrades every citizen in this nation. Even for those individuals who are applying for citizenship, the Constitution remains an easy read.
Bain indicated his “hope that the coming generation of students, along with applicants for citizenship, lawyers, and ordinary citizens, will take an interest in this new and different edition of the Constitution and learn from it, noticing that slavery is in the back of the book where it belongs.” In other words, “buy my book since I rewrote the Constitution in true liberal, progressive, leftist ideology in hopes to sway the public to our way of presenting the Constitution.” He wants to make sure that his years of studying and rewriting the Constitution for the “modern era” literally pays off. Moreover, one could surmise Bain hopes to garner support for a “rewrite” to the Constitution in order to present a more liberal, progressive, socialist, powerful federal government slant. Interesting Bain’s book, published June 23, 2015, is for sale at a time when the Con-Con is a hot potato. It is no coincidence.
There is not one thing about this nation or its history that liberals do not find offensive. One requests them to enlighten the rest of us why they are still here. Personally, continuing to refer to the Southern States’ residents as “rebels” is offensive to many. It is time that label be relegated to the “back of the books.” The same can be said for “confederate ideology” when it refers to the continued advocacy of slavery by the modern Southern States. It is hypocrisy supreme as no one talks about slavery occurring in the Northern States during the past. That is something that should be prominent in the history books since the North is as guilty as the South, per their own reasoning. However, liberals suggest the South possesses greater guilt as more slaves were located in the South.
More importantly, what Bain promotes here is censorship, pure and simple — a twisted censorship of history and the Constitution of the united States of America. For someone who is supposed to be a “constitutional expert and government researcher,” Bain falls short. To think that he could “rewrite and organize” the Constitution better than Jefferson, Hamilton and other founding fathers along with those at the Convention in 1787 reeks of over inflated ego, nothing more.
History is history. The hallmark of socialism/communism is rewriting it to assess blame, guilt and shame to exact submission of the people to centralized power. Rewriting history doesn’t change it; it only skews it to the viewpoint of the ones conducting the revision.