Author Topic: Missing 13th Amendment...Part II  (Read 386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14998
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
Missing 13th Amendment...Part II
« on: February 04, 2007, 11:54:09 PM »
Continued from Missing 13th Amendment, Part I

To the English and French nobility, a treaty is nothing more than a temporary truce in its most honorable form, or a stratagem to mislead or lull the other side to sleep, in its most common usage.  As  reference for this observation, I will refer to all six volumes of "The History of England" by David Hume.  In this 3500 page work, one cannot read five consecutive pages without encountering a breach of oath or treaty.  Two examples illustrate the perspective by which a treaty is comprehended by European minds.  In 1418, the duke of Burgundy and the dauphin made arrangements to hold a conference to discuss the possibility of combining forces for the purpose of opposing the English.  Since they were bitter enemies, they made arrangements to meet on a bridge that had been specially gated at both ends.  They were to meet in the space between the gates and each had agreed to bring ten partisans with him.  As soon as they reached the middle of the bridge, the dauphin's partisans drew their swords and killed the duke.[61]  Nearly sixty years later Edward 4 and Lewis of France concluded the Peace of Pecquigni on a bridge with a rail constructed in the middle which had portals that would allow the passage of an arm; this precaution was taken in memory of the assassination of the duke of Burgundy.[62]

     It is lunacy to expect the British to consider themselves bound by the Treaty of Peace of 1783.  If the English nobility actually remained faithful to this treaty, it would be such an
astounding and unique event that the resulting glare of attention would expose their other, uncountable, treacheries.  The English nobility would not risk such embarrassment for the sake of honoring one treaty.

     Furthermore, we witness in English history the pursuit of the conquest of Scotland for twelve hundred years, of Wales for eight hundred, and of France for more than five hundred.  Should we take warning from this history?  America has been out of obedience for a mere two hundred years.  Within the context of English history, it is entirely reasonable to conclude the British intend to subdue America - no matter how long it takes.  We don't even have to guess.  Let us examine their own words.


The details and language of these debates are so important that I quote extensively from "The History of the American Revolution."

When the British surrendered at York-town on October 19, 1781, the land war in America was over.  All that remained was to wait for the British to acknowledge defeat and work out the terms of the peace.

           (Six weeks after) the capitulation of York-town, the King
     of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781),
     declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the
     sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice
     either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease
     and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests,
     upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future
     strength and security of the country must forever depend."
     The determined language of this speech, pointing to the
     continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority
     of both Lords and Commons.
           In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the house
     of commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to
     be their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the
     Americans to obedience BY FORCE would be ineffectual, and
     injurious to the true interests of Great Britain."  Though the
     debate on this subject was continued till two o'clock in the
     morning, and though the opposition received additional
     strength, yet the question was not carried.  The same ground
     of argument was soon gone over again, and the American war
     underwent, for the fourth time since the beginning of the
     session, a full discussion; but no resolution, disapproving
     its farther prosecution, could yet obtain the assent of a
     majority of the members.  The advocates for peace becoming
     daily more numerous, it was moved by Gen. Conway that "a
     humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be
     pleased to give directions to his ministers not to pursue any
     longer the impracticable object of REDUCING HIS MAJESTY'S
     THE CONTINENT OF AMERICA."  This brought forth a repetition of
     the former arguments on the subject, and engaged the attention
     of the house till two o'clock in the morning.  On a division,
     the motion for the address was lost by a single vote...
           The ministry as well as the nation began to be sensible
     of the impolicy of continental operations, but hoped that they
     might gain their point, by PROSECUTING HOSTILITIES AT SEA.
     Every opposition was therefore made by them against the total
     dereliction (i.e., abandonment) of a war, on the success of
     which they had so repeatedly pledged themselves, and on the
     continuance of which they held their places.  General Conway
     in five days after (Feb. 27), brought forward another motion
     expressed in different words, but to the same effect with that
     which he had lost be a single vote.  This caused a long debate
     which lasted till two o'clock in the morning.  It was then
     moved to adjourn the debate till the 13th of March.  There
     appeared for the adjournment 215 and against it 234.
           The original motion, and an address to the King formed
     upon the resolution were then carried without division, and
     the address was ordered to be presented by the whole house.
           To this his majesty answered, "that in pursuance of their
     advice, he would take such measures as should appear to him
     the most conducive to the restoration of harmony, between
     Great Britain and the REVOLTED COLONIES."  The thanks of the
     house were voted for this answer.  But the guarded language
     America; together with other suspicious circumstances, induced
     General Conway to move another resolution, expressed in the
     most decisive language.  This was to the following effect
     that, "The house would consider as enemies to his majesty and
     the country, all those who should advise or by any means
     attempt the further prosecution of offensive war, ON THE
     COLONIES TO OBEDIENCE BY FORCE."  This motion after a feeble
     opposition was carried without a division, and put a period to
     all that chicanery by which ministers meant to distinguish
     between a prosecution of offensive war in North America, and
     a total dereliction of it.  This resolution and the preceding
     address, to which it had reference, may be considered as the
     closing scene of the American war (emphasis added).[63]

     In other words, Parliament "ended" the American Revolution by agreeing among themselves that an "offensive war, ON THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA," was ineffectual, that they would continue the hostilities on the seas; that the American states were still regarded as COLONIES; that the goal of "reducing the COLONIES to obedience BY FORCE" would be abandoned, which would be consistent with a new policy of reducing the "colonies" to obedience by stealth and treachery.  A policy perfectly consistent with the role of England in the French Revolution, the American Civil War and the Bolshevik Revolution - to name a few enterprises.  We find identities in all that point to a common motive force: rulers that were voluntarily reforming their societies; the barbaric murder of these rulers; the genocide laid upon their subjects; the corruption of words significant in American law and the policy of preventing voluntary reforms.

     We will now examine the irregularities surrounding the proposal and ratification of the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - and its British origins.


     No amendment to the U.S. Constitution has generated as much controversy as the so-called fourteenth.  Its proposal and ratification process was laced with as much larceny as the disappearance of the original thirteenth was enveloped in mystery.

     To begin with, the amendment, now known as the fourteenth, was never properly proposed.  There are two modes of proposing an amendment: by the states or by Congress.  When Congress proposes, the method in this case, two-thirds of the members of both houses must assent to it and "no state without its consent, (can) be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."  When Congress proposed the amendment, twelve states were deprived of their representation in Congress: all the Southern states and New Jersey was deprived of one Senator.

     This alone is sufficient to invalidate the so-called fourteenth.

     When the proposal was sent to the states for ratification, there were thirty-seven states in the Union.  Ratification, then, required the approval of twenty-eight states; only ten states rejecting would defeat the proposed amendment.

     The proposal was sent to the states in June of 1866.  By March of the next year, twenty states had ratified and thirteen had rejected the proposed amendment.  It failed.

     These totals do not include the action of Tennessee, which is generally regarded as ratifying the proposed amendment.  However, since the Tennessee legislature was not in session, a special session had to be called.  Although the Senate ratified the proposed amendment, the House could not muster a quorum, a requirement in order to legally act.  Finally, after several days and "considerable effort, two of the recalcitrant members were arrested and brought into a committee room opening into the Chamber of the House.  They refused to vote when their names were called, whereupon the Speaker ruled that there was no quorum.  His decision, however, was overruled, and the amendment was declared ratified on July 19, 1866, by a vote of 43 to 11, the two members under arrest in the adjoining committee room not voting."[64]

     After learning of the proposed amendment's failure, Congress immediately passed a Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, which annihilated the governments of the ten Southern states that rejected the amendment, placed them under military rule and required the ratification of the proposed amendment before said states could be readmitted to representation in Congress.

     Subsequent to this action, two states (Nebraska and Iowa) ratified and three states (New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon[65]) reversed their ratifications.  Thus, and disregarding the actions
done under Reconstruction, the final tally was nineteen for, sixteen against, and two (California and Tennessee) not acting.

     This tally, of course, does not correspond to the "official" tally, which is another source of irregularities.  On July 20, 1868, William H. Seward, Secretary of State, issued a declaration[66] that listed twenty-three states that voluntarily ratified, six states that ratified under martial rule and two states that voluntarily reversed their ratifications; Seward then effectively stated that "if the martial rule ratifications were valid" and "if the voluntary reversals of ratifications were invalid," then the proposed amendment was adopted.

     Congress was not satisfied with this "Through the Looking Glass" interpretation of the ratification process and ordered Seward, by statute of 1868 July 21, to issue an unconditional statement of adoption.[67]

     Because of the reckless abandon and total disregard for common sense, constitutional requirements and common law displayed by the proponents of this "amendment," it is appropriate to ask 'why was this proposal shoved down the throat of an unwilling nation?'  If we examine the face of the proposal, we find scant clues.  But if we delve into the origin of this "amendment," we see all too clearly why its "ratification" was compelled with guns and bayonets.

     The plan that eventually became the proposed amendment was introduced into Congress by Thaddeus Stevens, congressman from Pennsylvania.  The plan was written, however, by Robert Dale Owen.[68]

     Who was Robert Dale Owen?

     His Father, Robert Owen, was the acknowledged father of British socialism.[69]  He owned, with several partners, and managed a textile factory in Manchester, England.  One of his
partners was the father of Friedrich Engles.  Robert Owen moved to America with his four sons, including Robert Dale, in 1824 and purchased the Harmony Society from George Rapp.  This was a
communistic society in that the members gave all their possessions to the society and agreed to work for the society in exchange for food and lodging.[70]  After three years, Robert Owen sold Harmony and returned to England where he set up similar societies and agitated for the rest of his life for socialist schemes.  One of Owen's publications, "New Moral Order," printed several articles by Friedrich Engels, who later teamed with Karl Marx.[71]

     Robert Owen's four sons remained in America and became American citizens.  Robert Dale, in 1827, "established at New York with Fanny Wright "The Free Inquirer," a socialistic, agnostic and
Malthusian publication."[72]  He was elected to the Indiana legislature in 1835, Congress in 1843 and 1845 and appointed ambassador to Italy in 1853.  He returned to America in 1858 and devoted his efforts to abolitionism, socialism and spiritualism, i.e., talking with the dead.

     Thus, the plan, which eventually became the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, was written by a man who was born into socialism and pursued it the rest of his life.  Is the so-called Fourteenth Amendment consistent with the nature of socialism?

     The essential characteristic of socialism is its centralizing nature: the collecting of all power into as few hands as possible.  By this process, the individual is reduced to a nameless, rightless
beast of burden whose only purpose in life is blind obedience to the party in power.

     The debates concerning the ratification of this proposed amendment make it clear that it was well understood:

       in the Indiana legislature that "the amendment would change
the whole organic [Constitution] structure of the Government;"[73]

       in the Wisconsin legislature that, if the amendment were
ratified, "the State would be sovereign in nothing;"[74]

       in the Pennsylvania legislature as it was asked, upon
ratification, "what further need have we of the state
government?"[75] and declared, "The issue is, whether the
Constitution of the United States or the Will of Congress shall be
the supreme law of the land."[76]

       in North Carolina that "under the original Constitution,
... the municipal affairs and the personal and property interests
of the citizens were left to the States, but this was all changed
by the Amendment, for the federal government would be authorized to
come between a State and its citizens in almost all conceivable
cases,"[77] and that the Amendment tended "towards centralization
and consolidation ... and that even without new constitutional
grants of authority, the federal government was no longer what it
once was, but was now a mighty giant which threatened to swallow up
the States, and to concentrate all power and dignity in

       in Arkansas that the proposed Amendment "virtually
abolishes the State," and that ratification would constitute "an
act of disgrace, if not annihilation" and that the proposed
Amendment would transfer "to Congress jurisdiction of the local and
internal affairs of the States, virtually destroying the
independence of their courts and centralizing their reserved powers
in the federal government."[79]

       in South Carolina that "the last section of the Amendment destroyed all the rights of the states and centralized all power in Congress, and that this was done, not openly, but covertly and insidiously;"[80]
       in Mississippi that it represented "a gross usurpation of
the rights of the States and ... a centralization of power in the
federal government;"[81]
       in Maryland that ratification "was virtually to empower
Congress to abolish State governments."[82]

     Thus, we have a situation where Congress abolished ten state governments through the Reconstruction Acts,[83] and required, as a condition for re-admission to representation in Congress, ratification of an amendment that would give Congress authority to abolish state governments.  Only a mind infected with lunacy or larceny is capable of imagining such a "ratification" to be valid.

     Thus, the content of the proposed amendment and the method of its "ratification" are consistent with the nature and policy of socialism.  The centralizing effect of the proposal is consistent with the centralizing nature of socialism.  The forced "ratification" of it is consistent with the policy of socialists who impose their nostrums upon all others - voluntarily if possible
-with guns if necessary.

     There is another consideration regarding the "ratification" of the socialist amendment: the status of the Southern states while they were under martial rule.  To be a state of the Union, a state must be fully represented in Congress and it must stand on an equal basis, in all respects, with all other states of the Union.  All eleven Southern states, at the time each of them "ratified" the socialist amendment, were denied their representation in Congress and were under martial rule.  A geographical area under U.S. military rule is legally recognized as a territory or a district -
not a state.  Congress referred to these states as "insurrectionary districts" in the tax act 1862 June 7.[84]  Thus, all of the Southern states were territories or districts when they "ratified"
the socialist amendment.  All of the Southern states were "re-admitted" to the Union after they "ratified the socialist amendment.  They never ratified it as states.

     This raises another question: Can Congress require territories, as a condition for admission to the Union, to adopt or ratify an amendment that has not been ratified by the existing states?  Will the existing states allow the conditions of their Union to be altered by someone outside the Union?  Such an arrangement would violate all common sense and the fundamental law of self-preservation.

     Why was the socialist amendment rammed down the throat of an unwilling nation?  The income tax act of July 1, 1862[85] imposed "a duty of three per centum" on the salaries of federal government employees, "a duty of three per centum" ... "upon the annual gains, profits, or income of EVERY PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES" and "ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES residing abroad."  It was recognized in an 1872 supreme court case[86] that "within the United States" consisted of "in the District of Columbia or in the territories."  It was also held that a "citizen of any one of the states of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." ... [This was] the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the  Constitution."[87] Hence, the income tax act of 1862 reached only to those residing "in the District of Columbia or the territories" and to state citizens "residing abroad."  There was no provision in the Constitution to extend to extend the act into the states - except to federal employees.  To overcome this obstacle was the purpose of the socialist amendment.  Its first section reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  Before the socialist amendment, the only distinction between a United States citizen and a state citizen was that the former was a state citizen abroad.  After the "ratification" of the socialist amendment, courts began making fundamental distinctions between the two types of citizenship.

           Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, ... it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are     not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the [socialist] amendment.[88]

           The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was to confer the status of citizenship upon ... persons [who] were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country, or having never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves.[89]

           Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.[90]

     In other words, according to American law, members of the white race enter state citizenship thru birth or naturalization; those of African blood enter UNITED STATES citizenship thru the socialist amendment.

     This leads to another complication.  The income tax is imposed "on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States;[91] and "Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen [of the United States]."[92]  This is language straight out of the socialist amendment - which was intended to address the problems of former slaves or descendants of slaves - and no one else.  Hence, the only people in this country who are required to submit to the income tax are those who reside in the District of Columbia or the territories or, as long as the socialist amendment is held to be valid, United States citizens: those of the black race.

     Owing to the mysterious disappearance of the Thirteenth Amendment of 1819 and the fraudulent ratification process of the "socialist" amendment, it appears that the last valid version of the U.S. Constitution was the 1867 edition published by the Territory of Colorado - with some questions about the ratification process of its fourteenth, anti-slavery, amendment.  Hence, all actions by Congress after 1867 March 2, the date of the first Reconstruction Act, may be regarded as void, as done by an unauthorized entity.

     It is the 1867 U.S. Constitution that represents the uncorrupted will of the people - that represents valid restrictions placed upon federal and state governments.  We should be using this
version in our briefs, textbooks and essays.  We have a right to do so; and no branch of any government has authority to avoid its limitations.

     If we use this 1867 version of the Constitution, it is undeniable that major consequences will ensue.  Major pathological organizations have been built on foundations that depend on the
fraud and deception perpetrated by Congress in the 1860's.  If we begin to use this 1867 version, we will set in motion forces that will contribute to ripping the fraudulent foundations from under
massive social organizations and ways of life for millions of people.  The unfolding events will, very nearly, cause the earth to rend and the sky to fall.  In the name of justice, such events
should not influence our decisions.  The only question we should be concerned with is "Who should suffer the liabilities of that fraud? We, who suffered by it and were misled about it, or they, who misled us and enriched themselves by it?"

     There seems to be a maxim that operates here, something like, if you take the benefits of a privilege - or title of nobility - you must also take the burdens.


     And now, let me provide a summary of this sketch of history that I have painted for you.

     Few people seem to comprehend the unique status of the American Revolution.  All other Revolutions in history have been concerned with nothing more than who will be the despot.  The American Revolution was a contest between despotism and none.  In this contest, the Americans established a conception of law unique in history.  On the one side, we may put the English (or Oriental) conception of law and on the other, the American conception.[93]

     Under the former, it is held ONE, that the people must renounce their rights before receiving "protection" from the government (the problem here is that, with no rights, what is left to protect?); TWO, that governments are first organized and then a constitution is promulgated, by the government; THREE, that this constitution is fluid and subject to the will of Parliament.

     In the American conception of law, it is held ONE, that the people retain their rights which are protected, at least in part, by government; TWO, that a constitution is first created and then a government is created therefrom; THREE, that the constitution is subject to the will of the people, not the legislature.

     The distinctions between the English and American conceptions of law were well understood by the American rebels.  Not only did the Americans understand these differences, but they made the establishment of those principles the fundamental and practically the only issue of the American Revolution.  When Ben Franklin went to London in late 1774 to negotiate with Parliament, he submitted a list of seventeen demands and concessions to be considered by
Parliament.  Among the items in that list were the following:[94]

     Third [item], "The acts of navigation to be all re-enacted in
the colonies" which was "not approved, as it implied a deficiency
of power in the parliament that made the acts."

     Eighth - "No troops to enter and quarter in any colony, but
with the consent of its legislature."  Parliament held this request
to be "inadmissible."

     Tenth - "No fortress to be built by the crown in any province,
but with the consent of its legislature" which was "refused."

     Eleventh - the Massachusetts Acts (which included the Boston
Port Bill, which caused widespread and severe economic hardship) to
be repealed.  This was "refused absolutely, except as to the Boston
Port Bill which would be repealed ... [but the] other MASSACHUSETTS
POWER OF PARLIAMENT."  (Emphasis in original.)

     Most, if not all of the first sixteen items were specific complaints based on the fundamental complaint of the power of Parliament WITHIN THE COLONIES.  These complaints arose from the
practice of overriding colonial enactments and judgements, of depriving colonists of their rights and property by acts of Parliament, of altering colonial charters.  Accordingly, Franklin concluded his list with:

     Seventeenth - "All power of internal legislation in the
colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament."  Parliament held this to
be "inadmissible."

     Upon learning of Parliament's rejection of item seventeen, the negotiation was shortened and Dr. Franklin observed that "while the Parliament claimed and exercised a power of internal legislation for the colonies, and of altering American constitutions, at pleasure, there could be no agreement, as that would render the Americans unsafe in every privilege they enjoyed, and would leave them nothing in which they could be secure.  It being hinted how necessary an agreement was for America, since it was so easy for Britain to burn all her seaport towns, Dr. Franklin replied,

           "that the chief part of his little property consisted of
     houses in such towns, that they might make bonfires of them
     whenever they pleased.  That the fear of losing them would
     never alter his resolution of resisting to the last extremity,
     that claim of Parliament, and that it behooved Great Britain
     to take care what mischief she did to America, for that sooner
     or later she would certainly be obliged to make good all
     damages with interest.

     "Dr. Franklin declared that the people of Massachusetts would suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by Parliament.  He was for securing the unity of the empire, by recognizing the sanctity of charters, and by leaving the provinces to govern themselves, in their internal concerns, but the British ministry could not brook the idea of relinquishing their claim to internal legislation for the colonies, and especially to alter and amend their charters. The first [Franklin] was for communicating the vital principles of liberty to the provinces, but the latter [ministry] though disposed to redress a few of their existing grievances, would by no means consent to a repeal of the late act of Parliament for altering the chartered government of Massachusetts, and least of all to renounce all claim to future amendments of charters, or of internal legislation for the colonies.

     "... Finding the ministry bent on war, unless the colonists would consent to hold their rights, liberties and charters at the discretion of a British Parliament, and well knowing that his countrymen would hazard everything, rather than consent to terms so degrading as well as inconsistent with the spirit of the British Constitution, he quitted Great Britain in March 1775, and returned to Philadelphia.  Dr. Fothergill, his worthy coadjutor in the great business of peace, wrote to him on the evening before he left London.  "That whatever specious pretenses were offered, they were all hollow, and that to get a larger field on which to fatten a herd of worthless parasites, was all that was intended." "[95]

     The rock upon which the British empire split in two was the legal concept "imperium in imperio," which means "government within a government," "state within a state."  The colonists were objecting to the existence of Parliamentary government within a colonial government: of Parliamentary interference with colonial internal affairs.  Not only did the colonists object to the
imposition of "imperium in imperio," but they sought to establish what I call the American conception of law: that people RETAIN rights when entering into society; that constitutions are created first and governments therefrom and that constitutions are subject only to the will of the people.  One of my authorities for this conclusion is the two volume set of "American Political Writings During the Founding Era," all 1300 pages of it and especially pages 455 to 480.

     Six weeks after Ben Franklin quit England, the shot heard 'round the world was fired.

     The American Revolution created in America two great offices: "We the People ... and our Posterity" and "government."  The first office is natural and permanent while the latter is artificial and temporary.  Each office has certain rights, privileges or prerogatives attached to it; but these are not exercised by the office: they are exercised by the living humans who happen to
occupy either office.  One enters into the office of "We the People ..." by birth or naturalization in one of the states of the Union -  thereby becoming a state citizen.  One enters into the office of government with a declaration of submission (or oath of office) to faithfully obey and execute a constitution: the will of the sovereign.

     "We the People ... and our Posterity" are also known as states: "a politically organized body of people occupying a definite territory; esp : one that is sovereign."[96]  The concept "state," with a lower case "s," does not include government.  We would have an absurdity otherwise: for, in America, a government is created by the people of a particular territory, i.e., a state; it would be nonsense to assert that an entity (i.e., state) includes the concept government and that it creats a government.  Hence, when the federal Constitution refers to states, it does not refer
to state government; it refers to peoples occupying certain territories, known as states (such as California) who are sovereign.  The governments created by them are not sovereign.

     The affairs of sovereigns are divided into two divisions: internal and external.  The internal affairs concern what we do on our property or territory; and external affairs concern the defense of our borders concluding agreements with, and sending ambassadors to, other peoples, i.e., states.  During and after the Revolution, the thirteen states delegated the management of their external affairs to the Continental Congress.  In 1789, they delegated the management of their external affairs to the newly created "government" of the United States.  The fourth act of this newly created Congress was the creation of the Department of Foreign Affairs (now Department of State); the seventh act was the creation of the Department of War and the twelfth act was the creation of the Treasury Department, to collect taxes and duties at the seaports, imposed by the second act.  The federal government acts only through its executive departments and these three departments had responsibilities at the exterior borders of the states and out. For its first nine years, the federal government had three departments.  In 1798 April 30, the Department of the Navy was created - to defend the states on the high seas.  The Continental Congress and the "government" of the United States were nothing more than a fourth branch of every state: the foreign affairs branch.  Hence, the federal "government" is not a government: it is merely a branch of every state government: it is a treaty organization among the states -not the state governments.  The state governments did not create the federal "government."

           Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Major John Cartwright,
     of June 5th, 1824 (vol. 4, p. 396) says "With respect to our
     state and federal governments, I do not thing their relations
     correctly understood by foreigners.  They generally suppose
     the former subordinate to the latter.  But this is not the
     case.  They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and
     integral whole.  To the state governments are reserved all
     legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own
     citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever
     concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these
     functions alone being made federal.  The one is the domestic,
     the other the foreign branch of the same government - neither
     having control over the other, but within its own

     In 1834, the state of South Carolina, not its government, nullified an act of Congress and its courts had to decide whether a militia officer had to take an oath of office to support the state AND federal Constitutions.

           Sovereignty no more resides in the government of the
     United States, than in the government of the state... The
     twenty-four states [sovereign people] are united together by
     a league of friendship [treaty organization].  They have
     concentrated their sovereignty - and in the exercise of this
     concentrated sovereignty they have formed a government.  This
     government only extends to the external relations of the
     states - and surely it will not be pretended that the
     sovereign power of the states was less exercised in forming a
     government for their external relations, than in forming a
     government for their internal relations, when the only
     difference is, that in the latter case they acted separately,
     and in the former they acted jointly.  If this view be
     correct, ... will it be pretended that allegiance is only due
     to the sovereign power forming a government which relates only
     to the internal concerns of the state?  Would not such an
     allegiance be contradictory and absurd, as being against a
     part of the sovereign power of the state?  By what power was
     the government of the United States formed, if it was not that
     part of sovereign power in each state to form a government for
     the external relations of the state?  Suppose the states had
     not united themselves together, but had remained separate and
     distinct states, would not the people of South Carolina have
     had the power, in their sovereign capacity, to extend their
     government so as to embrace their external relations as a
     nation?  And if an oath of allegiance only applied to the
     power so far as to form a government for the internal
     relations of the state, would such allegiance have extended to
     the external part of the government?  Would it not have been
     an allegiance to a part of the sovereign power, in exclusion
     of the other?  And would this not be absurd and contradictory?
     The force of this argument will be seen at once, when we
     remember that the government of the United States is the
     government of South Carolina, so far as the external relations
     of South Carolina are concerned.  [Comments in brackets are

     Hence, the federal "government" is nothing more than a treaty organization among sovereign peoples, or states - not state governments.  In America, every state government has four branches: executive, legislative, judicial and foreign affairs.  For the sake of efficiency and strength, the states agreed to combine their foreign affairs branches into one entity.  This fact has significant consequences.  ONE.  The purpose of the federal "government" is to defend our external borders and beyond.  The states have no land area beyond their borders: the federal "treaty organization" was not created to govern any land area.  TWO.  The states have one class of sovereign citizen.  It would be nonsense to create a citizenship for the executive branch, one for the legislation branch, one for the judicial branch and one for the foreign branch: hence, there are no citizens of the "United States."  THREE.  To the extent the federal "government" operates within the states, it is violating the "separation of powers" doctrine - such violation being a species of "imperium in imperio."

     The principles that were established by the American Revolution - the abolition of "imperium in imperio;" that rights are retained by the people; the constitutions are framed then governments created therefrom and that Constitutions are subject only to the will of the people - were completely overturned in the Civil War with the so-called fourteenth Amendment, which permitted the federal government to come between state citizens and their governments in every conceivable manner.  The plan that eventually became this "amendment" was written by Robert Dale Owen, a naturalized Englishman who agitated for socialist causes his whole life.  The plan was introduced into Congress - the House by Thaddeus Stevens and the Senate by William Pitt Fessenden - by two lawyers who worked for the communistic Harmony Society, which had been owned by the father of British socialism, Robert Owen. Fessenden, for what it's worth, was named after William Pitt, the British prime minister during that festival of mysticism and savagery, the French Revolution.

     Let us summarize the British attempt to recover her "lost colonies."  Partly for conquest and partly for revenge for assisting the Americans, the British organized and directed the French Revolution - leaving upwards of one million killed; the British spent twenty-five and a fortune to provoke the American Civil War, prevent the voluntary manumission of the slaves and create a weakened nation that would easily fall into the hands of the British; because the Russians frustrated these plans, the British organized the Bolshevik Revolution, leading to the extermination of fifty or sixty million Russians.

     What was it that sparked this world-wide frenzy of slaughter? It was the audacity of the Americans who imagined that "all men are born equal," that rights are inherent and inalienable and that governments are created to protect rights -not thieves and murders, as governments are expected to do in all other parts of the world.  The American experiment is singular in the folly of man.  Is it not unreasonable that it should spark a fury of revenge equally singular in magnitude?  It is the same frenzy demonstrated by the "enraged prince" John, who laid waste and left ashes thruout England as revenge for the "insult" of the barons of Runnymeade, who required his mark upon the "Magna Charta."

     The world has paid a terrible price for our freedom - and a greater price still is yet to be paid.

     Dare we imagine the British to have abandoned their millennia-long quest of domination?  Nay, we dare not; for, once an enterprise of conquest is chosen, the road back is forever closed.

            In a discussion, which Xenophon attributes to the Greek poet
     Simonides and Hiero I, the tyrant of Syracuse (Hiero) says
     that it is a mere popular delusion to fancy that tyrants are
     to be envied.  They have not half the pleasure, and they
     suffer twice the pains that private individuals do.  Their
     enjoyments are dulled by satiety - they cannot realize the
     full pleasures of love because they never can be sure that
     their affection is returned.  "Indeed, there are none from
     whom conspiracies against kings proceed more frequently than
     from those who have affected to love them with the greatest
     sincerity.  If peace is thought to be a great good to mankind,
     tyrants have the least participation of it; if war is deemed
     a great evil, kings have the greatest share of it.  Private
     individuals, if they go to make war in an enemy's country,
     still find, as soon as they return home, that there is safety
     for them there; but tyrants, when they come to their capital,
     are conscious that they are then in the midst of the greatest
     number of enemies.  They distinguish, no less than private
     persons, which of their subjects are wise and just, and of a
     constitutional spirit; but instead of regarding such
     characters with admiration, they look upon them with dread.
     They fear men of courage, lest the multitude should desire to
     be governed by them.  But when, from apprehension, they have
     removed such characters out of the way, what others are left
     them to employ in their service except the dishonest,
     licentious and servile?"  So far from a tyrant being happier
     than other men, his state of mind may be summed up by saying
     that "he passes day and night as if he were condemned by the
     whole human race to die for his usurpation."
           On hearing this statement, Simonides asks, "Why, if such
     be all that your position of royalty has to give, do you not
     voluntarily abdicate?"  Hiero answers that this very thing is
     one of the worst features of usurped royalty - that it is
     impossible to set one's self free from it.  "For how can any
     tyrant command sufficient resources to make restitution of
     property to those from whom he has taken it, or how can he
     make atonement to those whom he has cast into prison, or for
     those whom he has unjustly put to death?  In short, a tyrant
     can have no comfort either in keeping his throne or resigning

     We find the English nobility in the same predicament: they possess nothing that has not been stolen or yielded up without murder.  They are comfortable in their splendor, pomp and posturing - and there is only one way to maintain it.

     The people who led the American Revolution were well acquainted with English history.  They left England to escape an oppressive system.  By the Revolution and all the subsequent actions, they intended to forbid from these shores the defects and evils of the English conception of law.  In their conquest of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France, the English nobility has demonstrated the capacity to maintain an obsession over centuries.  If the British manage to return America to obedience, do you suppose they will slap us on the wrist and tell us to "be good little boys?"  The purpose of the original Thirteenth Amendment did not arise from a need to correct a casual defect.  It was brought forth to secure us from the fury of an enraged prince.  The American rebels did all they could: they bequeathed to us ideals and documents that pointed in the right direction.  But, it was not enough.  The necessary ingredient to put life into their legacy was beyond their capacity to give: the common sense to use it.

     To the Europeans, the purpose of war, always, has been loot, murder and rape.  This is the business of European nobility.  For more than a thousand years before the American Revolution, Europe was an annual battlefield.  Nothing more honorable than plunder was ever the object of any campaign.  Because they fought for no ideals or principles, it was common for troops to change loyalty; a king or captain could never be certain his troops would end the day fighting for or against him.  His most reliable method of securing loyalty was to promise more loot or rape to his nobles.  The problem continued even after victory as the prevailing nobles quickly formed conspiracies to overthrow the monarch they had just installed with their swords.  To a European, war was a contest among bands of thieves, murderers and sodomites; and the object was never intended to last any longer than their next erection.

     It was this attitude, selected by centuries rapine and swindling, the British brought with them when they attempted to subdue the Americans.  Accordingly, one of their first acts was to issue a standing offer of reward throughout the colonies to anyone who would desert to their side. The offer consisted of warm clothing, blankets, shoes, a roof to sleep under and gold coins - all of which most American rebels had not.

     The British offer was measured in a "currency" totally worthless to Americans.  During the winter of 1777-1778, General Washington decided to keep his troops at Valley Forge without engaging the British: the Americans would have been too easily followed by the tracks of blood left by their bare feet on the hard frozen ground.[100]

     In January 1781, the American General Morgan defeated a British force at the Cowpens, South Carolina, in a rare winter offensive, and took 500 well clothed British prisoners.[101]
General Morgan then decided to retreat with these prisoners to join his man force at Charlottesville.

           In this retreat the Americans underwent hardships almost
     incredible.  Many of them performed this march without shoes
     over frozen ground, which so gashed their naked feet, that
     their blood marked every step of their progress.  They were
     sometimes without meat, often without flour, and always
     without spirituous liquors.  Their march led them through a
     barren country, which scarcely afforded necessaries for a few
     straggling inhabitants.  In this severe season, also with very
     little clothing, they were daily reduced to the necessity of
     fording deep creaks, and of remaining wet without any change
     of clothes, till the heat of their bodies and occasional fires
     in the woods dried their tattered rags.  To all these
     difficulties they submitted without the loss of a single
     centinal by desertion.[102]

     We must pause to reflect on this march by General Morgan.  He and his troops were escorting five hundred British troops: the Americans wore "tattered rags" and no shoes while their prisoners
were well clothed and had shoes on their feet.  These American rebels, who never received more than 25 percent of what was promised them, were paid with depreciating paper - while their prisoners had gold in their pockets.

     Why did they endure incredible hardship and display unrivaled integrity?  The Americans were fighting a war the world had never seen before.  They intended to establish the rights of property -and here is the embodiment of it: these men marched barefoot in the snow and ice instead of taking shoes that did not belong to them - even tho they had the power.

     Did they imagine themselves to be on a summer picnic?  Did these men lay down their lives and forsake all loot to create a paradise for insolvent loafers and venal old men?  Did these men intend to win their freedom but deliver their children into slavery?  I think not.

     Or did they intend to create a security for their rights? - and for all time?  Did they intend to lift their achievement into the heavens to serve as a beacon of hope and courage to others?  I think most of them had these intentions.  How else can we explain the lack of desertions for the momentary satisfactions of a hot meal, a warm bed or a pair of shoes?

     These men have returned to the earth now.  Their work was unparalleled in the chronicles of our species - and it has been practically erased from our memory; a development that should not surprise us when we consider the fates of the barons of D, Louis XVI, Lincoln, Alexander II, Nicholas II, Count Stolypin and his daughter.  It is now our responsibility to recover their achievement.  They will not know our choice; they will not know whether they sacrificed in vain or for good cause - but our children will.



1.   AntiShyster, August and October 1991 issues, 9794 Forest Lane,
Suite 159, Dallas Texas; 15. FRu's for six monthly issues.

2.   Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1819, p. 50, ch 35, passed March 12, 1819.

3.   The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, 1819, p. 30

4.   General Laws ... passed by the Sixth Session of the
Legislative assembly of the Territory of Colorado, 1867, p. 28

5.   General Laws ... passed by the Eighth Session of the
Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Colorado, 1870, p. 26.

6.   Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley, Carroll, 33.

7.   Ibid, Quigley, 34.

8.   Ibid, Quigley, 190-1.

9.   Ibid, Quigley, 192.

10.  Webster's Seventh Mew Collegiate Dictionary.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Ibid.

13.  The History of England, Vol. 1, Hume, 33-4

14.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 34-5

15.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 44

16.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 105

17.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 119-121.

18.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 127

19.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 28.

20.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 30.
21.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 61-2.

22.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 97.

23.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 82

24.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 172.

25.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 501.

26.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 498-505.

27.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 514.

28.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 98.

29.  Ibid, Vol. 2, Hume, 279, see also 189-190

30.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Hume, 449-450.

31.  The Unseen Hand, Epperson, A. Ralph, 87.

32.  The Curse of Canaan, Mullins, Eustace, 112, and see 110-127.

33.  The French Revolution, Webster, Nesta, 423-5

34.  Ibid, Webster, 418.

35.  Ibid, Webster, 6.

36.  Ibid, Webster, 397.

37.  Ibid, Webster, 431.

38.  Ibid, Mullins, 184.

39.  Ibid, Mullins, 184-6.

40.  Ibid, Mullins, 147.

41.  Ibid, Epperson, 152.

42.  Ibid, Epperson, 155.

43.  Ibid, Epperson, 156.

44.  Ibid, Epperson, 158.

45.  Ibid, Epperson, 161.

46.  The Controversy of Zion, Reed, Douglas, 195.

47.  Ibid, Epperson, 160.

48.  Secret Societies, Webster, Nesta, 266.

49.  Encyclopedia Americana, 1948 ed., under Booth, Junius Brutus.

50.  The Communistic Societies of the United States, (first
published in 1875), Nordoff, Charles, 68.

51.  Ibid, Epperson, 94.

52.  Ibid, Reed, 170-1.

53.  Ibid, Reed, 170.

54.  U.S. Stat at Large, Vol. 12, p. 472, sec. 86 and 90.

55.  Ibid, Epperson, 101.

56.  Ibid, Reed, 240-1.

57.  Ibid, Epperson, 102-4.

58.  A Man Called Intrepid, Stephenson, William.

59.  Chisolm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 463 [1793].

60.  Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.

61.  Ibid, Vol. 2, 371.

62.  Ibid, Vol. 2, 486.

63.  The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9.

64.  Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, H.E. Flack, p. 165;
Tenn. House Journal (Extra Session), 1866, p. 25

65.  Oregon Senate Journal, 1868, pp. 66 and 131; Oregon House
Journal, 1868, p. 273.

66.  Statutes at Large, v 15, p. 706.

67.  Ibid, p. 708.

68.  Ibid, H.E. Flack, p. 65.

69.  Encyclopedia Britannica, 1954 ed., under Robert Owen.

70.  Ibid, Nordoff, p. 76.

71.  Encyclopedia Britannica, 1954 ed., under Friedrich Engels.

72.  Encyclopedia Americana, 1948 ed., under Robert Dale Owen.
73.  Ibid, Flack, p. 173; Ind. Brevier Legislative Reports, 1867,
pp. 44-46.
74.  Ibid, Flack, p. 178.

75.  Ibid, Flack, p. 180; Penn. Legislative Record, 1867, Vol. 2
(Appendix), p. 13.

76.  Ibid, Flack, p. 181, Penn. Legislative Record, 1867, Vol. 2
(Appendix), p. 18.

77.  Ibid, Flack, p. 198.

78.  Ibid, Flack, p. 200.

79.  Ibid, Flack, p. 201-2; see also Ark. Senate Journal, 1866, p.
259 and Ark. House Journal, 1866, pp. 288-91.

80.  Ibid, Flack, p. 202.

81.  Ibid, Flack, p. 203, see also Annual Cyclopeadia, 1866, p.

82.  Ibid, Flack, p. 206.

83.  Statutes at Large, v. 14, pp. 428-9; v. 15, pp. 2-4, 14-6 and

84.  Stats at Large, v. 12, p. 422.

85.  U.S. Stat at Large, Vol. 12, p. 472, sec. 86 and 90.

86.  Slaughterhouse Cases, (1862) 16 Wall 72, 83 U.S. 407.

87.  Ex parte Frank Knowles, (1855) 5 Cal 302.

88.  Slaughterhouse Cases, (1872) 16 Wall 72, 83 U.S. 408.

89.  Van Valkenburg v Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43.

90.  Crosse v Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A. 2d 433.

91.  Title 26 CFR 1.1-1(a).

92.  Title 26 CFR 1.1-1(c).

93.  American Political Writings During the Founding Era, Vol. 1,
Hyneman and Lutz, 464-468.

94.  The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 1, Ramsay, David,

95.  Ibid, Vol. 1, Ramsay, 167.

96.  Webster's

97.  Ex rel M'Cready v Hunt, (1834) 2 Hill 53.
98.  Ibid, 2 Hill 144.

99.  Xenophon, Grant, Sir Alexander, 151-3.

100. Ibid, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 356.

101. Ibid, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 554.

102. Ibid, Ramsay, 556.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu