DR. MADISON SAVES THE MARRIAGE!
So, Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene wants a National Divorce? “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” the Georgia Republican Greene wrote in a separate tweet on Presidents Day.
Say what? “Separate by red states and blue states?” “To avoid a civil war?” Hon, the last divorce caused the Civil War: custody dispute over Fort Sumpter. Separate into what? Different countries? Who gets custody of the armed forces? Who gets Dollywood? I assume Washington DC would go with Blue, but since woke folks don’t approve, maybe all the statues can be moved to Red America.
Divorce decree for the USA wouldn’t be easy. At least in 1860, all the slave states that wanted out were grouped together in the same place. It made things easier with borders and stuff. But the Blue states are all over the map, and so are Red ones. How do Cali and the Left Coast make a common border with New York and Illinois?
When the USSR broke up over irreconcilable differences, the only weird patchwork bit was what used to be half of East Prussia where the Russkies wanted to keep the harbor. But mostly Russia likes to keep all of itself together, as well as anything else next door they can grab.
If we’re going to separate, who decides which states are Blue and which ones Red? Cali and NY? Blue. Texas and Florida? Red. But out in Oregon, a large part wants to break off from Weird Portland and become part of Idaho. Ditto for inland Washington. Non-coastal Cali might go with non-Vegas Nevada. Most of Illinois would be happy to invite out Chicago. Upstate New York says “bye, bye Gotham.”
And not all states are deep Red or Blue. Here in Michigan, we’re purple, which means we regularly veer back and forth. If we tried to divide Michigan up, we’d have little bits here and there. Maybe the Blue-ies could unite with Chicago. Some places could conceivably unite with Ohio, but even the most ultra-Maga Michigander would choose rule by Castro than be a Buckeye.
Personally, I got a problem with this idea. It sounds to me like secession, and that’s treason in my book. I have an ancestor who fought in Mr. Lincoln’s army, and I don’t need him coming back in his Union uniform calling me a ‘dirty Reb.’ Interesting that the lady talking national divorce hails from Georgia. That ancestor of mine actually got to hike through her lovely state, stopping at picturesque local plantations along with a tour guide named Sherman, with a special visit to beautiful downtown Atlanta. Rep. Greene: I’d counsel ixnay on the ecession-say talk if I wuz you.
Now the Blue-ies do seem bound and determined to make us all Cali or Weird Portland, playing by Dirty Chicago rules, no matter where we live, using the national government as their instrumentality. I do see her point. Pity we don’t have a system that would allow individual states to basically run their own affairs, with a loose overall structure taking care of foreign affairs and interstate stuff. Maybe one that treats each state as a separate constituent republic. Actually, we do. It’s called “Federalism.”
If only we had some sort of blueprint about how such a nation would be set up and operate! Actually, we have one: the U.S. Constitution. That’s right. The United States is not a unitary 50% + 1 democracy, but technically a Constitutionally limited Federal Republic. It’s a union of states. Now the limits of state sovereignty have been pretty well tested–both in the Supremacy Clause: Article V, Section 2—and in the National Unity Debate of 1861-65.
But the real change that turned the states into mere flunkies of the Federal level were reactions to the challenges of the Great Depression, WW 2, the Cold War, and the mid-century social upheavals. Centralization of power is a very 20th Century thing. It seems like a simple solution to a big problem: give the Feds a lot of power and let them solve the issue.
But power concentration creates its own problems; it’s the enemy of personal freedom and autonomy. Plus all manner of virtuous folks figure if they seize the Federal power, they won’t have to voluntarily convince people of their utopias, just order them. Or take over the big cities in the big states and push the little ones around.
So maybe the answer isn’t a divorce from a Federal power owned by states and elites seen as hostile, just a return to our underlying structure: a federation of states. If California wants to become Venezuela on the Pacific, so be it. Try Florida instead. If Colorado becomes a one-party Blue state, try Red Texas. The states were historically called “laboratories of democracy.” So let one experiment with Blue, another Red. Others can muddle along with Purple. Let people decide which one works better.
A Federal United STATES of America? What a concept! I know it sounds really weird, but we should try it. It beats the Disunited States of Divorce any day of the week. Call 1-800-MAD-ISON, for Dr. Madison’s Federalist Marriage Counselling. After all, he wrote the American Marriage Pre-Nup Agreement.
6 thoughts on “DR. MADISON SAVES THE MARRIAGE!”
In your article, you define secession as an act of treason. While I understand that your ancestors conquered the South, violence has never settled a legal issue which is what secession was and remains. May I respectfully suggest a volume written by Mr. Charles Adams entitled “When in the course of human events: Arguing the case for Southern Secession.” Perhaps it will provide you with a different prospective on the War for Southern Independence and perhaps even cause you to question your stated position as articulated in this missive. Finally, Sir, I shall enclose a recent missive I penned to a San Antonio TV reporter after I was made aware of and read her article that advanced what I considered to be an erroneous opinion regarding the matter of secession. I hope you will find it informative. Please feel free to make me aware of any flaws in my arguments. I would appreciate the feed-back.
21 November 2022
A Native Son of Texas admits he was wrong about Secession.
Good day Ms. Patton,
I was made aware of your recent article regard Texas secession through the Brion McClanahan Show podcast episode #740. I have since read your article and wish to log these comments for your intellectual gratification and reflection.
As a native Texan and son of San Antonio, (I attended Central Catholic right across the street from KSAT TV) I too grew up with the notion that Texas was different from any other States in the union in that it was an independent country for approximately ten years prior to its annexation into these United States and Texas’ reserved right to session was somehow unique among the other States in the union.
I was in error.
Secession is not a right reserved solely to Texas, but to every Sovereign State in the union. It remains so today, even in light of the Texas v. White decision. Article 1, Section 10, Article 6, Section 2 and the tenth amendment of the constitution for these United States null and voids the aforementioned ruling.
Let me explain.
While you are quite correct in citing Texas v. White as the current jurisprudence governing the concept of secession among the several States, (along with the Coleman v. Miller decision, you forgot that one) a careful analysis of the Texas v. White decision will expose it as a fundamentally flawed ruling written by an activist court that was legislating from the bench in order to provide political cover for Lincoln’s War and the Radical Republican agenda found in the Reconstruction Acts. The fact that Texas v. White is void of a single constitutional citation to justify its holdings is very telling to those who would honestly seek to evaluate its legal validity.
Here is why Texas v. White (and subsequently Coleman v. Miller) is wrong.
Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution for these United States are a list of the powers that every State has DELEGATED to the general government and may not exercise as long as individual States adhere to the union. The right to secession is not prohibited to the States in the aforementioned article of the constitution nor is the power to prohibit secession articulated in the constitution as a power delegated to the general government. The tenth amendment to the constitution clearly reserves all powers NOT DELEGATED to the general government to the Sovereign States and their people, PERIOD. Article 6 Section 2 is the supremacy clause. Just because the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Salmon Chase ignored these previsions in the constitution of 1787 does not invalidate their legal standing. In these components of the constitution of 1787 lays the right of the Sovereign States to secede from the union.
Moving forward. The word ‘Perpetual’ is found in the Articles of Confederation, (AOC) but a funny thing happen on the way to the constitutional union we have now. The thirteen Sovereign States that made up the ‘perpetual’ union founded by the AOC, without permission from any other State, SECEDED from said ‘perpetual’ union under the AOC and ADHERED to the new union of the constitution of 1787. How did those States do that without successful, violent revolution? Or, being kicked out by the other States in the confederation? There were no votes by the other States who adhered to the AOC to allow for the withdraw of any other State from the AOC nor were there any votes that would have allowed said States to adhere to the union formed by the constitution of 1787. Most people do not know that the Sovereign States under the AOC failed to send enough delegates to the first constitutional convention (The Annapolis Convention of 1786) in Annapolis, Maryland and that the Sovereign States never really authorized the complete rewriting of the AOC at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, circa 1787. Fast forward to 1861 and you will find that Lincoln held the belief that the union he was ‘divinely mandated’ to protect sprang forth from the Declaration of Independence, (four score and seven years) a myth that does not take into context the plain language of the last paragraph of the Declaration, (That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;) nor the subsequent government under the AOC, the recognition of each, independent State in the Treaty of Paris which formally ended our First War of Independence and the ratification processes and the subsequent ratification articles of the several Sovereign States in consideration of the constitution of 1787.
According to Texas v. White, the States should have had to grant permission for the other States to leave the ‘perpetual’ union founded by the AOC since, according to Lincoln, the union preceded the constitution of 1787 and the AOC. While I acknowledge that Lincoln’s concept is not articulated in the AOC, nor was such a mandate ever articulated in the constitution of 1787, such a mandate just happened to be ‘found’ by the SCOTUS under Chief Justice Salmon Chase and is erroneously enforced as standing precedence in our jurisprudence today.
The simple fact of the matter is, the Sovereign States of the union of the AOC exercised their there lawful power to secede from the union of the AOC that they had ASCEDED to previously. There was no common plebiscite among the States of the AOC and nowhere in the constitution of 1787 was such a plebiscite required for secession. I will refer you to the Hartford convention of 1814 to broaden your understanding of just how common the concept of the right of secession was among all the States in the early 19th century. I will also refer you to the writings of William Rawle as found in “A View to of the Constitution of the United States America” for further information regarding the constitutionality of secession.
It should be noted that Salmon Chase was Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury at the onset of the Lincoln administration. As Secretary of the Treasury, Chase allowed Lincoln to unconstitutionally spend unappropriated money to fund the initial blockade and military build-up for Lincoln’s War. Lincoln could have called the Congress into session at any time but refused to do so. Considering the unprecedented crisis Lincoln faced, one might ask why he did not do so. The answer might just be in what he did between 4 March and 4 July, 1861. The spending of unappropriated money for military activities violates Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13 of the constitution of 1787. Chase could have resigned in protest against this unconstitutional act but remained and complied with Lincoln’s dictates. This being the case, an ethical Supreme Court Justice should have recused himself from any such issue before the court such as those found in Texas v. White. Any ruling save for the one Salmon Chase wrote could have implicated him in a conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting in inaugurating an unconstitutional war of aggression against a Sovereign Republic that had not attacked the union. It is what legal scholars called a conflict of interest.
Now, a little history in depth.
The almost universally accepted concept of Sovereignty held by the several States came to an end on March 11th 1861 when the Confederate Congress signed the Confederate constitution and forwarded it to the Sovereign States of the Confederacy for ratification. The north-eastern industrialist saw that the Confederacy was establishing a free-trade zone in their nascent government and that that free trade zone would threaten their long-standing strangle-hold on commerce. The northeastern industrialist were not going to tolerate this.
A casual reading of editorial pages from northern and southern newspapers of the times will reveal to you the almost overnight change in northern opinions. Prior to the 11th of March, 1861, many northern’s, particularly the abolitionists, were of the mind to let their “wayward sisters” in the south go their own way. After northern business saw their moneyed-interest threatened, they became the most ferocious kind of war hawks these United States have ever seen. Those moneyed interest (many would go on to become our first Robber Barons such as J.D. Rockefeller) would loan the national government much of the money it needed to prosecute this war of conquest while influencing Congress to write clauses in the Enrollment Act (Conscription Act) of 1863 that allowed wealthy men to pay someone else to fight in their stead. (Just like J.D. Rockefeller did and he was not alone. Another classic example of a rich man’s war but a poor man’s fight wouldn’t you say?)
Let us not forget Lincoln’s obtuse obsession with the tariff revenues. Lincoln was particularly obsessed with the tariff revenues generated by southern agricultural exports and the protective tariffs that shielded northern industries from foreign competition. This was understandable since those tariff had made up the vast majority of Federal revenue for decades prior to his election. However, both of those tariffs disproportionately benefited the northern States at the expense of southern States. The re-enforcement of Fort Pickens, Florida, on April 11, 1861, (the unlawful act of aggression that violated the armistice between the Federal government and the Sovereign State of Florida that actually marked the beginning of Lincoln’s War) and the occupation of Fort Sumter by union forces clearly showed the Lincoln administrations intent on collecting tariff revenues from these two major southern ports by military force emanating from these fortresses. The fact that these agricultural products were produced through slave labor did not seem to bother Lincoln so much as not collecting the tariffs. If Lincoln’s War was primarily to emancipate slaves, why would he want to collect revenue that emanated from the labor system he so ‘abhorred?’ Even Charles Dickens could see that taxes were the primary cause of Lincoln’s War, even from as far away as England. Please feel free to verify this little known fact about Dicken’s. He wrote extensively on the subject.
So it was the Confederacy’s strengthening of the constitution of 1787 that threatened the status quo on the North American continent couple with the Confederacy’s fealty to the founding concept of the Sovereignty of the States that led to Lincoln’s War. Just like King George the Third attempted to use force to compel the colonies to remain in the British Union, Lincoln used force of arms to compel the Sovereign States of the Confederacy to remain in the union. In many ways, Lincoln became a 19th century version of Julius Caesar. Lincoln crossed many a ‘Rubicon’ in his march to war with the south. The list and examples of these constitutional violations could fill many more paragraphs in this missive but suffice it to say his deployment of the Navy to blockade southern ports was one of his first unconstitutional acts. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives power to declare war solely to the Congress. Lincoln refused to call the Congress into session when he was well and able to do so. Therefore there can be no excuse for this arbitrary and tyrannical usurpation of Congressional power.
Lincoln committed what was then and is still recognized as an act of war in enforcing a blockade against the south. (Reference Vattel’s Common Law of Nations) Depending on what jurisprudence one follows, this singular act made Lincoln either the initiator of an unjust war of conquest or, hold on to your boot straps, a man guilty of at least eleven counts of treason. The charge of treason is based on Article 3 Section 3 and the Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution for these United States.
According to Texas v. White, written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, appointed by Lincoln, and according to Lincoln’s own articulated point of view that no State ever left the union legally, the suppression of an internal rebellion/insurrection by the armed forces of the Federal government of these United States would have required an active request from each State’s legislatures or Governors (if the Legislatures were not in session) in accordance with Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution of 1787. To send troops into any Sovereign State in the union or blockade their ports, without permission, was an act of war against those Sovereign States involved. Article 3, Section 3 is quite clear about what constitutes treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Simply put, if the Confederate States were in the union and Lincoln invaded them without permission to suppress rebellion/insurrection, Lincoln made war on the States invaded and was therefore guilty of treason.
I now offer you, Ms. Patton an opportunity to show me any documentation from let’s say the Sovereign Government of South Carolina, in 1860 or 1861, asking Lincoln to send in troops to aid in the suppression of an insurrection or rebellion against the union. Save yourself the time. Such documents do not exist. One need look only to the innumerable deprivations the union army inflicted on the south to see that they were not there to suppress a rebellion/insurrection by a rancorous minority, they were an invading army bent on conquest. As Sherman once opined, “War is hell” and the well-document trail of deprivations his army left across Georgia were the mark of a barbaric hoard employing total war tactics against the civilian population, not an Army there by popular request to suppress a rebellion/insurrection.
The constitution of 1787 created a ‘Republic of Republics’ that was designed to allow for the peaceful coexistence of the several Sovereign States. It accomplished this by allowing each State to reflect the culture and ideas of its people without unwanted influence from other Sovereign States. The constitution of 1787 did this by restricting the general government to only those powers DELEGATED to it by the Sovereign States. The constitution of 1787 was never designed to create a one sizes fits all government. Those concepts were destroyed by Lincoln’s War and Radical Republican Reconstruction. It could be argued that we now live by the imperium of an elected king thanks to Lincoln.
Unlike King George the Third, Lincoln consumed all the lives and material resources he needed in order to see his vision of government prevailed. Both men used the militaries at their disposal in an attempt to override lawful, established governments. Whereas King George failed, Lincoln conquered and replace the established constitutional order of 1787 with something much more despotic, much more authoritarian. As General Robert E. Lee was once quoted as saying, ‘our defeat will lead to a national government that will be aggressive abroad and despotic at home.’ Who can honestly argue that he was in error in this prophetic oracle?
It is now time to mention the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Compromise that were proposed as solutions to the secession crisis and Lincoln’s war. Any accurate appraisal of the Texas v. White decision cannot be made without studying these pieces of legislation. They lay waste to the ‘Righteous Cause’ mythology that permeates our current studies of history hence the reason why their study has been precluded in our primary and secondary educational systems. Please check them out.
In reference to Justice Scalia’s comments, he simply was in error. Please do not think this arrogant presumption on my part. Many leftist in these United States believed Justice Scalia was in error in the vast majority of his legal opinions and the majority of those leftists where neither lawyers nor judges just as I am not. That being said, one can ascertain my position is not unique, just from a different, more constitutionally verifiable point of view. The well-known concepts of State Sovereignty, delegated powers and reserved powers were often cited by Justice Scalia during his life and tenure as a Supreme Court justice. Why he deviated from these guiding principles and ignored the plain text of the constitution in the matter of secession is a mystery that, unfortunately, will never be solved. It is telling, however, that neither the words ‘perpetual’ ‘permanent,’ nor ‘eternal’ are to be found in the 1787 constitution for these United States. It is even more telling that Justice Scalia still found reason to hold Texas v. White as a valid piece of jurisprudence. One can argue that perhaps the life-long tenure of a Supreme Court justice, while in theory protects the members of the court from the influence of public opinion, does not provide complete or even sufficient absolution from the public’s vulgar and often poorly resourced opinions. Ultimately, contrary to Justice Scalia’s public opinion on secession, the constitution of 1787 and the thirteen articles of ratification from the original Sovereign States lend testimony to his error in this matter.
You mentioned Mr. Eric McDaniel’s opinion on the matter of Sovereign State secession. Well, he got the problematic part correct. It is problematic that the general government, under Lincoln, transformed a voluntary Republic of Republics into a nationalist empire through force of arms and not the consent of the governed. Can a government claim that it governs by the ‘consent of the people’ when half its people were compelled by force to remain in a political union? I think not and anyone who believes in the concept of ‘might makes right’ had best take another look because the next time force is use to compel changes in government, you might not like what you get.
We also cannot dismiss out of hand that Lincoln had a great deal of help from the 1848’ers; a group of communist revolutionaries that immigrated to our country to escape the consequences of their actions in the aftermath of multiple, failed communist revolutions in Europe in 1848. These revolutionaries would assume key leadership roles in the union government and military during and after Lincoln’s War. These communist revolutionaries would become the foundation for the Republican Party of 1856 and beyond. One must not forget that it was Lincoln who received congratulations from Karl Marx himself on his re-election in 1864. It was Adolf Hitler, in Mien Kompf, who held Otto Von Bismarck and Lincoln’s ideas of nationalism in high regard and as an example of how nation-states should be organized and governed. Neither one of these men liked President Jefferson Davis…
By now, I am sure that you are looking at this missive and wondering where I could have possibly conjured up such unorthodox ideas. My father once told me history has three versions; the winner’s side, the loser’s side and the truth that lays somewhere in-between. I seek the in-between. You will not find the in-between in contemporary American education. Our educational system is lacking in objectivity due to political influences that would use history as a bludgeoning tool to secure power. History is written by the victorious (Voltaire) and history is nothing but a fable agreed upon (Napoleon) so it is logical to assume that our national narrative would reflect Lincoln’s War as the greatest event in the history of the Republic not the Pyrrhic victory that it actually was. Much of what I have mentioned here is consider blasphemy by modern historians. But all of my contentions can be traced to primary source documents. One can disagree on my interpretation of historic facts but you cannot deny that they are facts. Just look them up in your Library of Congress.
Another question you might want to ask, is why did Chief Justice Chase include expulsion from the union as one of the two ways a State can leave the union in Texas v. White? You might want to look at the ratification process of the 13th amendment; which States ratified it, and then ask why the southern States who refused to ratify the 14th amendment were expelled from the union. Many of the southern States who voted for the 13th amendment, and provided the margin for its success, were thrown out of the union for voting against the 14th amendment. Why? If they were part of an ‘indivisible union’ when voting for the 13th amendment, why were they punished with ‘expulsion’ and military occupation for failing to ratify the 14th amendment? Where is the power to expel a State for failing to ratify a proposed constitutional amendment found in the constitution of 1787? Funny how Texas v. White found this power in the constitution of 1787 isn’t it? Can you find that power in the constitution of 1787 Ms. Patton?
In the end, I do not personally view the Texas v. White as constitutionally sound jurisprudence. The constitution of 1787 reserves the right of secession to the Sovereign States based on the Article 1, Section 10, Article 6, Section 2 and the tenth amendment. Therefore, I view Lincoln’s War as an unjust war of conquest that led to the imperium we endure today. But if you, Ms. Patton, hold out that the Texas v. White decision was correct, even though it could not cite a single constitutional provision justifying it, then you are going to have to at least grapple with the notion that Lincoln may have committed treason against the Sovereign States the union army and navy made war upon. If the Confederate States were never out of the union and never asked for help nor gave the Federal government permission to march into their States and put down the rebellions/insurrections, Lincoln has a lot to answer for in respect to Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution of 1787.
Texas v. White makes for a difficult choice for those who hold Lincoln in high regard; is he guilty of a war of aggression against an new, Sovereign Republic? Or is he guilty of treason in making war against his own country?
Not at all a good place to be if you ask me.
History is a far more complex and nuanced than we are willing to admit. Keeping history a contest between the good guys and the bad guys makes it easier to exploit in the pursuit of political power. Trying to judge history by current standards is not only illogical but pretentious to the extreme. I do not hate the English for starving, assaulting and enslaving my Irish and Scottish ancestors. No one should. In order to learn from the past, you have to learn to be tolerant of it.
I would be remiss if I did not credit the tutelage of Dr. McClanahan, Dr. Clyde Wilson, Dr. Dilorezo, Dr. Charles Adams and all the contributing writers at the Abbeville Institute for their extraordinary insights into the history of our Republic of Republics. Much of what I have learned in the past three years about the War for Southern Independence has been through their efforts. I would highly recommend their collective works as a great way to learn the truth that lays ‘in-between.’
I hope this missive takes you down a path that will at least broaden your perspective on the Southern War for Independence.
I remain your humble servant,
Joseph M. Wert
Dear Mr. Wert:
Thank you for your erudite and quite fascinating discussion of secession. I’Ve never seen the case for state secession made out as comprehensively as this. I’m clearly going to enjoy studying this brief more. However, I remain unconvinced. My understanding is that upon joining the Federal Union, the state or territory surrenders its right to unilaterally secede.
I certainly appreciate the unique position of the Texas Republic, as a sovereign nation. However, the Republic could have, upon entry, negotiated a clause as it were, allowing exit (“Texit?”) The Republic did not. I’d have to say that argues for Texas intending to cede a right to secede.
Thank you again for your thoughtful arguments.
I won’t address whether there was a right to succession but will point out that the work done by Dr. Madison and his friends must have been imperfect or at least became out of date by 1861 or there would have been no civil war. Also, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments fundamentally changed the constitution to the point that one can’t speak of going back to the original federal scheme without repealing at least the 14th Amendment. I’m not sure you conservatives would even want to do that as it is the 14th Amendment that has been held to make the Second Amendment binding on the states. As to repealing the New Deal, Medicare, environmental laws and much of the rest of the 20th Century, it’s probably best not to suggest that during fears of a bunch bank closures.
Good to hear from you! I think Dr. M, as well as his partners Drs. Hamilton & Jay are still quite relevant. I’m not ready to repeal the New Deal, but we can talk about the Great Society.
I would respectfully offer you the following web sites to study in reference to the 14th amendment. As a ‘conservative’ (someone who advocates State sovereignty, republicanism, federalism and constitutionalism) I would never fear a return to the federated republic of republics envisioned by the framers. What I do fear most is the continued recklessness of our current central government. Our continued deviation from those constitutional principles are the chief source of the banking problems and the myriad other problems the several States are experiencing at this time. The parallels between the socio-economic conditions of our republic today and Weimar republic of 1925-1933 are uncanny and frightening. It is proof that “What is past, is prologue” and that we should “Study the past.”
The Web sites:
Consider the ideas contained in these two sites when you take the 14th amendment into due consideration. If you have information which contradicts these two authors ideas, please do pass them on. I would enjoy reading information that is at variance with these ideas and utilizing those different ideas to either bolster my current understanding or correcting a potential defect in my understanding of the nature of the legality of the 14th amendment.
I am your humble servant,
Joseph M. Wert