R.I.P. North and South Magazine (1997-2013)

North and SouthCan’t say that I am surprised by this news. After sixteen years Keith Poulter is calling it quits at North and South magazine. I still remember opening up the first issue back in 1997. At that time I was managing the periodicals section at Borders Books in Rockville, Maryland. At the time I was just beginning to read Civil War history seriously and I even tried my hands at writing a few book reviews for the Washington Times. I contacted Keith early on to see about writing book reviews for the magazine and he gave me the green light to contribute on a fairly regular basis. You can find a fair number of my book reviews in those early issues, which helped me quite a bit to begin to build up a resume and make new contacts.

For much of its history N&S was a quality publication, though now I understand that much of that had to do with the work of Terry Johnston, who eventually left and founded The Civil War Monitor magazine. For those of us looking for a bit more academic rigor North and South offered a wide range of topics from some of the leading historians along with footnotes. Who ever heard of such a thing in a glossy. I continue to use many of the articles in my Civil War courses.

The magazine business is very competitive and most publications last no more than a couple of years. Keith demonstrated that there was room for another Civil War magazine, but he also showed what happens when mismanagement and broken promises go unaddressed. I know a number of authors who were never paid for their articles. My own experience with Keith was incredibly disappointing. After formally accepting one of my essays for publication and even after advertising it as forthcoming the piece never appeared and Keith never explained why. That is no way to deal with your contributors and I promptly canceled my subscription.

Despite these problems it is safe to say that Keith Poulter helped to stretch the boundary of what is possible in a Civil War glossy and you can see its influence in other magazines. I wish Keith all the best in his future endeavors.

Print Friendly
 

58 thoughts on “R.I.P. North and South Magazine (1997-2013)

  1. Gregg Jones

    Sorry to here about the NS Mag going under. I think your observations are accurate but I would suggest that this needs to be looked at from a different facet. Every magazine is a business and if you don’t know your business you will most likely fail. In my opinion, NS failed for the main reason that it was not marketed successfully. If you don’t have customers you know what that will lead to.

    PS Good Luck on the book.

    Reply
    1. Kevin Levin Post author

      The quality of the magazine took a major hit when Terry Johnston left. I don’t know how many people subscribed to the magazine or how it was marketed. I do know that Keith did not do a good job dealing with authors and that was likely a reflection of other problems with his management of operations.

      Reply
  2. Chuck

    I am sad to learn of the death of this excellent publication. I used many of the articles while teaching a high school Civil War course. The book reviews alone were worth the price. Articles dealing with serious issues ignored by more popular Civil War magazines were written by actual Civil War scholars who adhered to rigorous academic standards. I’ve wondered why I could no longer find it in bookstores. Now I know the unpleasant truth.

    Reply
  3. Eric Wittenberg

    There’s no doubt that it was groundbreaking stuff and the industry is better off for it.

    Having said that, the magazine was a victim of its founder’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen to anyone else. I lost a $20,000 investment in this fiasco. Had I known of Poulter’s incompetence as a businessman, I never would have invested. My bad; I’ve learned from my own mistakes.

    Because he never paid anyone timely, nobody would write for him anymore. That was the fatal thing and what ultimately killed the magazine. And for that, he has nobody to blame but himself.

    But, the offshoot–Terry’s excellent Civil War Monitor–takes what was begun with N&S and takes it to the next level. It’s a very worthy successor. And Terry is willing to listen to others and to take advice; he and I speak often about business issues that arise. Therein lies the difference.

    I will miss N&S. I will not miss Mr. Poulter or his shenanigans, and I feel for the rest of us suckers who invested real time and money in this venture and lost everything invested due to his lack of competence.

    Reply
    1. Kevin Levin Post author

      Hi Eric,

      You’ve mentioned this in the past when the topic of N&S has come up on this blog. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with my readers. It adds a great deal to the story of N&S’s demise.

      Reply
  4. Bryan Cheeseboro

    Wow, this is all so sudden and very disappointing. North & South was such an intelligent, scholarly magazine. It sounds like Mr. Poulter just didn’t have very good people skills or business management or maybe both.

    Recently, a friend gave me a bag full of Civil War magazines: North & South, America’s Civil War, Blue & Gray, and Civil War Times Illustrated (the bag required two hands to carry it). I weeded out the N&S issues right away. I love that the magazine had contributors who could comprehend what the war was about (not hard to figure out) and articulate this with excellent writing.

    I also mention the stack of magazines I got because one of the America’s Civil War issues was an issue I read a long time ago (1997-98?), featuring an article on Black Confederates. In fairness, this was back before the internet (for me, at least) and before the story spun out of control. Anyway, in that ACW article, it was the standard narrative about the faithful servant who sees his master get killed and then picks up a gun and joins the firing line to lick the Yankees. I read this back when the Myth was still manageable and seemingly believeable. Keith Poulter himself (on Civil War Talk Radio) spoke about Civil War magazines with poor research (I think the contributors were mostly freelance history buffs). N&S came along with several great articles sincerely examining why the Black Confederate thing is statistically insignificant.

    Too bad to see this all come to an end. But not the first time I’ve seen a commodity revolutionize its field and then suddenly be gone.

    Reply
      1. Brad

        Kevin,

        You can get a lot of back issues on eBay at reasonable prices. After a discussion of one of Prof. Harris’ articles in N & S, I found a copy there.

        Reply
  5. Gary H. Wishik, M.D.

    Makes me feel better about not ponying up a significant sum to Mr. Poulter for his 3W Eastern Front series of wargames….

    Reply
  6. Martin K. Fleming

    Sad to see this. Just wondering if the Feb. 2013 issue Vol. 14 # 5 was the last one that was published.

    Reply
    1. Laurence Freiheit

      Vol. 15, no. 5 was the last one I received. I had a lifetime subscription so when I read in the latest Civil War News that The Civil War Monitor would honor N&S subscriptions I was thrilled. I wonder if that will happen?

      Reply
        1. Laurence Freiheit

          CWM quickly replied to my inquiry telling me that my lifetime N&S subscription was converted to a CWM subscription ending in 2016. That could be a lifetime given my age.

          Reply
      1. Dan D Williams

        Please check you last copy of N & S. I do not believe you got a Vol 15 No 5. I think it was probably Vol 14 No 5. It is way to early to get a No 5.

        Reply
  7. brett wilson

    Hi my name is brett i live in australia and i have read the N&S magazines for years i finally took out a subscription only to be surprised that they are not publishing anymore is this true? what happens to me i paid good money to get a subscription and delivery?

    Reply
  8. Michael Winicki

    I too was surprised that the magazine folded. It was the only CW mag that I still subscribed to. I wasn’t aware of some of the “stuff” others are reporting, but it doesn’t surprise me. A couple years ago I suggested to Keith that he take the back issues (which are a “goldmine” of information) and put them on DVD, which would have created some immediate cash flow. I was never even given the courtesy of a reply. I’m a marketing “geek” by trade and I would have to think much of the failure of the magazine was due to the lack of marketing… And yeah author relations does fall under the umbrella of marketing.

    Reply
  9. Peter Lucas

    It’s too bad about N&S, but it had a fantastic run, given Mr. Poulter’s poor management. I seem to remember a few years ago he started publishing the magazine in Red China, and from that point forward the magazine was always filled with numerous typos. Despite that, even the last few issues had some excellent articles in them that you would not expect to fine anywhere else.
    I received my first issue of Civil War Monitor; it is a little disappointing, too full of “pop” filler. I hope that future issues will contain the scholarly-type articles we always found in N&S.

    Reply
  10. Tim Yates

    As others, I was surprised and disappointed when N & S stopped publication. Typos and layout problems (I really disliked the multicolored pages which made it hard to read the text) aside, I found the magazine very enjoyable and looked forward to each issue, The articles were almost always well-researched and written, and the editorial stance thoughtful and, at times, somewhat daring particularly in challenging Lost Cause orthodoxy. Until I read the commentary above I had no idea that Keith Poulter had apparently been so lax in marketing and so cavalier in dealing with contributors. Indeed, I stumbled across this website seeking an email address for N & S that might reach him so I could express my appreciation. I am pleased that I will be getting the Civil War Monitor in its place and I hope it will be of the same caliber as was N & S at its best. I am encouraged that Terry Johnson is seen as the person who fostered much of the qualityin N & S and that he is carrying forward with CWM.

    Reply
    1. Michael Winicki

      I just read my first issue of “Civil War Monitor” as a replacement for “N & S”…

      I found it to be decent but it’s pretty much like the other CW related mags you can pickup on the newsstand. Not much in the way of “in-depth” information like what Poulter gave us in “N & S”.

      I’m going to miss “N & S”.

      I hope someone comes into the market with a CW mag that has the ability to make you think.

      Reply
      1. Michael Winicki

        If I can look at an article and think, “This would fit in with one of the newsstand CW mags” then it shouldn’t be in CWM. Now that may be a little harsh and yeah I realize every magazine is going to have some “fluff” pieces, but the last thing I want to read is another story on say “The Battle For Little Round Top”. If you’re going to do a battle story then do something about the battle that hasn’t already been covered 100 times in books or other mags.

        I really enjoyed the topics in N&S where a group of historians would kick around a topic, like “Did the South have a Strategy?”

        N&S also wasn’t afraid of being controversial. I think this is an important point. The one thing a magazine doesn’t want to be and that’s boring. Even if you publish something people disagree with, they’ll still read it.

        Reply
        1. Kevin Levin Post author

          I really enjoyed the topics in N&S where a group of historians would kick around a topic, like “Did the South have a Strategy?”

          And here I thought those were the weakest pieces in N&S. Magazines do not have a high survival rate and I suspect it is even more so for history magazine. They need to find a balance between some of the more traditional stories and essays that challenge prevailing thought or steer readers in new directions. I believe CWM has done an admirable job in that department. Of course, we can agree to disagree. Thanks for the comment.

          Reply
          1. Bryan Cheeseboro

            “Magazines do not have a high survival rate and I suspect it is even more so for history magazine.”

            That’s interesting to hear. American Heritage Magazine has been around for almost 60 years; Civil War Times Illustrated has been in publication since the Civil War 100.

            Reply
              1. Michael Winicki

                Magazines… like any other business have that critical time period over the first 3 years or so. Make it past that point and you may be onto something that can last for a long time. Of course the failure rate over that first 3 years is pretty high.

                I don’t think “N&S” failed because it didn’t have a fan base. As others have pointed out it smacked of poor marketing and author relations. But it did last for 16 years, and to have it go out in the middle of the 150th tells me it wasn’t a content problem.

                If I was starting a CW pub I would do it pretty much like “N&S” did but would clean up some of the behind the scenes issues.

                Making a new pub the anti-N&S wouldn’t be a good direction, because again you end up moving towards the other CW mags.

                Reply
              2. Bryan Cheeseboro

                I figured as much. BTW, the June/July 1981 issue of American Heritage was the first place I ever saw the Andrew Chandler and Silas Chandler photograph. In the photo caption, Silas was a slave/body servant and that was it. I heard many other things about Black Confederate “soldiers” after that but I don’t think I saw the Chandler photo again until an the Vol. 5 No. 3 (April 2002) issue of North & South.

                Reply
            1. Dan Williams

              I consider American Heritage and the Civil War Times Illustrated to be Yankee rag mags. I will miss North and South but the publication Blue and Gray has never disappointed me.

              Reply
                1. Peter Lucas

                  Even the last issue I received of N&S was much more interesting than CWM. The articles are almost all highly original and of such obscure topics that they would never be covered by any other Civil War mag. A detailed analysis of how Julius Stahal has been unfairly accused of inactivity during the month around the Battle of Chancelorville; a detailed breakdown of the campaign against the Sioux in Minnesota in the summer of 1862? No other magazine would come close to articles like these. Instead, CWM gives us a long retread in overly broad strokes of the life of Dan Sickles, and a lot of speculation over what did or didn’t happen during Lincoln’s reading of the Gettysburg Address, and about 20 pages taken up with photographs of Civil War soldiers. Just a lot of filler. Not as satisfying, unfortunately.

                  Reply
                  1. Michael Winicki

                    Nice summation comparing the two magazines Peter.

                    The mistake a lot of business owners make is that they think they need to appeal to ALL the folks within a niche. For a magazine that wants to survive in the Internet-era, the focus needs to be on those topics that one isn’t likely to find on the Internet or in the newsstand types of magazine.

                    Reply
                    1. Kevin Levin Post author

                      One thing that CWM has done an excellent job with is with their digital presence. They made the decision early on to leave book reviews for the online site and you can read the full magazine in digital form as well. I happen to think the quality of N&S declined drastically during the last few years. Keith Poulter’s management was a disaster and left authors in the dust without payment. I had my own run in with Poulter as well.

  11. Peter Lucas

    Kevin, if you were screwed by Keith at some point, then I cannot blame you for having been soured and reluctant to say anything nice about N&S. But, as someone once said about Marx Brothers movies (paraphrase: “Even bad Marx Brother movies are better than anything else”), even bad N&S was better than anyone else; similarly, any Civil War Magazine is better than none at all, so I will be grateful that Civil War Monitor is honoring my subscription to N&S.

    Reply
    1. Kevin Levin Post author

      I’ve stated before that N&S was a quality magazine for much of its run, but in the end it declined dramatically once Terry Johnston left and Keith was left alone.

      Reply
  12. Dr David Paul Davenport

    Like one of the contributors above I too was looking for a current address for Mr Poulter so I could ask him when to expect the next issue of N&S. He has fallen behind in the past, but always gotten caught up, so I didn’t start to worry until I asked the magzine’s person at Barnes & Noble to check on the mag. She said it had ceased publication, but couldn’t say when. Yes, Keith, was “unreliable.” I organized three conferences in Clovis, California, just 35 miles from his home at Tollhouse, and offered him free space to set up and promote the magazine but he showed up only once just long enough to drop off a box of his magazines for us to deal with. I’m truly sorry that he wasn’t a better “people person” and I will certainly miss the magazine which for his faults, was always a quality publication — too much so at times because the ink came off on my fingers, and as noted above the type was too small to be easily read against the colored backgrounds he often foisted upon us. I have received two issues of Civil War Monitor, and now I know why. The first did not impress me – I’ve been a reenactor since 1991 and I considered the item about the GAC event in July to be unworthy of publication. If Terry J. is going to offer CWM as a successor to N&S he is going to have to dramatically improve the kind of items published. By the way — I didn’t know that Keith paid those who wrote for N&S. I am a retired college history professor (Fresno City College) and it would never occur to me to ask for $$ for what I produce. And I believe this is generally true for all academics, at least at tax-payer supported institutions. Publishing is part of the “community service” component of our tenure review.

    Reply
  13. Bill Haley

    Does anyone know what the last issue of North & South was? I was just doing some cleaning up and straightening up past issues of magazines. I noticed I only had one issue of North & South, which was Volume 14, Number 5. I don’t know how much farther my subscription had left. Also, if there were more issues past Volume 14, Number 5, would anyone know where I can purchase them? Thanks for any info.

    Reply
  14. Judith McParland

    I cannot pretend any surprise at the demise of N&S, and if the other magazines devoted to the civil war don’t pull up their socks, they are headed in the same direction. I have copies of Civil War Times and America’s civil war dating back forty years, and the change in the content is so radical it must have been calculated. With less advertising, and admittedly fewer pages, the early issued covered a vast sweep of the war and the events leading up to it with depth and without rendering judgment as to who was right, who was wrong, just presented the facts as known and let the reader make their own determination. They covered Confederates and Federals as equals, which they were, since both participated in the war, without prejudice or bias, and allowed their readers to form their opinions and voice them in their “letters” column.
    Then came political correctness, and the issues grew slicker, the articles more reflective of the author’s agenda, the truth skewed to fit the new “acceptability” as to how the whole war thing came about. U.S. Grant hung the moon, Robert E. Lee secretly fathered Hitler, left plans for 911 in code in his library and shot down the Hindenburg. Not working, dudes. The Monitor, thank goodness, so far as proved to be the legitimate heir to the early issues of these magazines and not the illegitimate child that N & S proved to be. We who study the war, it’s causes, it’s participants and it’s results, are not stupid. Paddy Cleburne said the victors would write the history of the war. He couldn’t have known they would all wind up working for the rag trade.

    Reply
    1. Michael Winicki

      Nice write up Judith. Gotta say though, I’m underwhelmed at “The Monitor” and chose not to renew my subscription. To me it’s an amped up “CWT” and “ACW”. Some nice articles and images that discuss certain parts of the conflict. But nothing that make you think. Nothing that could even remotely be construed as controversial. To me it’s just another “Caspar Milquetoast” civil war periodical.

      Reply
      1. Kevin Levin Post author

        Hi Mike,

        You are definitely are entitled to your opinion. Have you thought about subscribing to one of the two academic journals in the field? Are you already a subscriber.

        Reply
            1. Michael Winicki

              Thanks!

              Yeah, I’m familiar with those. Not bad magazines.

              My speed anymore is something like “Gettysburg Magazine”.

              When it comes to CW periodicals I either want something really in depth like they did in “Gettysburg Magazine” or what they did in “NS”.

              I (personally) don’t need a macro account of the Hooker’s assault on The Cornfield… Either give me micro account or let’s have a debate between historians on the effectiveness of Hooker’s generalship on Sept. 17th. That kind of thing.

              Reply
    1. Judith McParland

      Political correctness, to me, is the attempt to slant the facts, especially of history, to make them more palatable to a certain group of individuals. For instance, as pertains to the conflict of 1861-1865, we all abhor slavery, but to placate a certain group of voters, stating that it was the only cause of the conflict is not true. It was one cause, maybe the main cause, but not the only cause. To label Abraham Lincoln as the great emancipator and the kindly, benevolent friend to black Americans, also not true. He was a politician, first, last and foremost, and if keeping those in slavery in that state, had it furthered his political ambitions, he would have done it in a New York minute. Another example of political correctness, in my opinion, is that there were no black Confederates. Also not true. There were not thousands, but there were hundreds. Were they fighting to perpetuate slavery? Of course not. They fought because their home was invaded by a foreign (to them) army.
      Political correctness dictates that we should consider all those who fly the Confederate flag (by the way, that usually means the battle flag, since most of those who condemn the flag have no idea it is not the Confederate flag, which would be either the first, second or third national flag) are ardent neo-confederates who would jump at the chance to start the war again. Nonsense. They are men and women who are patriotic loyal American citizens, yet proud of those who went before them fighting for the cause they believed in. Political correctness is the effort in the last few years to condemn Robert E. Lee for a slave owning, slave beating tyrant, who killed all the young men in the south so his daughter’s had no one to marry and who spent his last years crouched in fear of his defeat in a tiny town in the Shenandoah Valley. Yeah, good luck with that one. Political correctness is to praise U.S. Grant as the greatest general who ever drew breath but no mention that his Presidential career was blighted by some of the worst corruption ever seen, even in Washington DC. And for that great general stuff, had positions been reversed, had he lead the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee the federal army, does anyone think the war would have lasted four years?
      And lest anyone toying with the notion of labeling me, for the sake of political correctness as a flag waving, unrepentant Confederate neo-con, I was born and raised on Long Island, coming from people who arrived on these shores in 1641, and who had ancestors who fought in the war, on the Union side. I just think it behooves any of us who study history to examine both sides and then decide what to believe, based on facts, not opinions used to fit a certain agenda.

      Reply
      1. Jimmy Dick

        So what were the causes? Do not say the tariff because that was not a cause. You cannot say state’s rights because no one can list those state’s rights. When they do attempt to do so the statements either are directly concerned with slavery or have no relationship to a state.

        How could they fight to defend their homes if slavery didn’t start the war? I seem to recall reading statements by the state convention delegates as they seceded saying they were leaving the Union in order to protect their right to own slaves. In doing so, they were in violation of the US Constitution. Lincoln was obligated under that same Constitution to defend the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Secession was proposed by men who were domestic enemies of the United States Constitution because they had to violate it in order to secede.

        Lincoln was putting down a rebellion and was within the boundaries of the Constitution to do so. Washington had done so. Why were those trying to secede any different than other domestic enemies of the US?

        Reply
        1. Judith McParland

          Interesting post. I must start with “how could they fight to defend their homes if slavery was not a cause”. I never said slavery was not a cause, I said it was not the only cause. And if an army of 75,000 men decided to march into any state, for whatever reason, I daresay the people of that state would take up arms and fight to defend their homes. I sure would. Since 94% of the men who did take up arms to fight had never owned and would never own a slave in their life time, I hardly think they were ready to lay down their lives so the other 6% could do so.
          As for secession, if it was illegal for Alabama or Virginia to secede, was it not also illegal for West Virginia to secede? If Lincoln was defending the Constitution, would it not be necessary to defend all of the Constitution, including the writ of habeas corpus. Since the south never had any intention to attack the northern government, just wanted to withdraw from a union they believed they had every right to withdraw from (I think that is where the states rights issue came up), who was Lincoln defending the US from? And no one believes that millions of Northern men went to war to abolish slavery in 1861, nor did millions of southern men go to war to preserve it. I believe a large reason for the war was that the two sides did not understand each other, their history, their culture, their way of life, and what we do not understand, we fear, and what we fear, we fight against. All it takes is a few hot heads, full of lofty rhetoric on both sides to lay the foundation. Sound familiar?

          Reply
          1. Jimmy Dick

            if the South had no intention of attaching the United States, why did it attack the United States and start the Civil War?

            Why would you fight a war over secession? Are you saying the South wanted to leave the US just because they were told they couldn’t? Isn’t that a bit childish?

            The issue of West Virginia involved a state government question. Had there been no Civil War going on with the former state government of Virginia engaged in rebellion thus no longer being the actual state government of Virginia since they were violating their oaths, the loyal people in West Virginia would not have had to form a state government that was not violating their oaths of office. This issue had nothing to do with the cause of the war.

            The issue of habeas corpus has been covered many times. Again, no war, no suspension of it. That had nothing to do with the cause of the war.

            Why would someone have to march an army into a state unless that state was in rebellion against the lawful government of the United States of America? Since the Lower South had already seceded and started the Civil War, Lincoln’s call for men did not cause the Civil War. The attack on Fort Sumter started the war. That attack was not the cause of the war nor was Lincoln’s call for men.

            While the records show us that most of the men who fought for the South were not owners of slaves, the same records show us that over half of the men who fought for the South were sons of slave owners who stood to inherit slaves, brothers of slave owners who used the slaves their brothers owned, cousins of slave owners who used the slaves their cousins owned, (just continue with additional family using slaves held within the extended family), and small farmers who rented slaves from slave owners. Thus they had a very large stake in maintaining slavery as the dominant labor system in the South. Now add in the fact that slavery was the basis of power in the South and key to the Southern way of life. Pretty much every man who fought for the South had an interest in that.

            As for rhetoric, the South was loaded with it. Slave owners owned the media of that error or controlled it. Anti-Slavery speech was outlawed in the South. The newspapers were full of pro-slavery rhetoric. It would be like having FOX as the only news channel in the South today. If that is all the people heard, then their ability to make a choice on positions was severely curtailed.

            So, I still do not see another cause for the Civil War other than slavery. Why did the Lower South secede? They told us why. It was because of slavery.

            Reply
            1. Judith McParland

              Referring to an earlier post from you, you state “Do not say the tariff”. Since this is, I hope, a friendly exchange of ideas and opinions, perhaps it would be best to refrain from being dictatorial. Did the Confederacy attack the north by firing on Fort Sumter? Yes, they did. Was this the opening salvo in their attempt to overthrow the northern government and occupy the north? No, it was not. I am not sure how my post was interpreted as my saying it was a war over secession, but in fact, the south did believe had the north simply let them walk away, we would not have had to sacrifice 625,000 + lives.
              How exactly was the government of the Commonwealth violating their oath? Oath to whom? A referendum held in the commonwealth allowed the citizens themselves to vote for secession, and since the government of Virginia’s oath was to the citizens of Virginia, they violated no oath. But the secession of West Virginia violated the dictates of the Constitution, but went unquestioned by the Lincoln administration. I never said that the habeas corpus issue was a cause of the war. I indicated it was another example of the northern government’s selective defending of the constitution. I also said, if you take the time to read the posting that the rhetoric came from both sides.
              I am still trying to digest the information that over half the men who fought for the south were sons, brothers, cousins, etc. of slave owners. Is their a reference for this information? Since a modest estimate of the men who fought for the Confederacy is 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 million, and admitting to the fecundity of the men of the 19th. century, there is a serious flaw in those figures. Most of the men who fought for the south were neither slave owners, nor the sons, brothers, cousins, etc. of slaver owners. They were small farmers, sharecroppers, artisans, and a smaller, but no less significant amount of craftsman, doctors, lawyers, students and members of other occupations who felt it their duty to defend their homeland from the invasion of what they considered a foreign army.
              I believe you referred to states rights in a former post, and how those rights could not be defined. The Bill of Rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson, says “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government……..” According to the 10th. amendment to the Bill of Rights, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

              Reply
        1. Judith McParland

          I am certain that Larry Wilmore is as entitled to his opinion as much as you and I are. I am not familiar with the gentleman but I love the Daily Show and think that Jon Stewart and John Oliver have their finger on the button of the myriad things that are driving a wedge between our people.

          Reply

Join the Conversation