Tag: Articles of Confederation

17SEP1787 – Coup d’etat in Philadelphia: US Constitution

Anyone who attended public school in the last 100 years have been taught that the US Constitution was one of the milestones in this country’s birth and maturation process towards being and becoming the land of the free.

This is rubbish. Americans were more free in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris than they were after the US Constitution was revealed on 17SEP1787 and finally ratified by 11 of the 13 former colonies two years later in 1789.

For those that would like to dig into the details rather than be persuaded by a single blog post I would recommend Sheldon Richman’s book ‘America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited‘:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Personally, way back in MAR1976 when I was a high school senior and 17 years old, I made the oath below:

“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Enlisting in the US Navy, I had little to no idea as to the words I was repeating. At that time I was not aware how defective the Constitution was, the way it was created (the charge in 1787 was to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to replace it) and the way it has been abused.

Note that my first charge in this oath I took is to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So what if the President of the US is that enemy, how can I still “obey the orders of the President of the United States”?

Looking back in history, I see that many if not all the presidents have subverted the US Constitution either in the letter or spirit of that defective document. LBJ, FDR, Wilson, Lincoln and even Washington all said that some existing crises necessitated their decisions and actions. So what good is this document (as Lysander Spooner said)?

The answer is “Absolutely Nothing!” This document does nothing to restrain tyranny in these united States as it was originally intended, by some of its authors.

But I digress, for a better question is why was this document needed? Why were the Articles of Confederation just tossed aside? Why was this document drafted in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy?

The truth is, if word leaked out of the actual contents, the original intent and the agenda that was behind this major shift, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. The authors of this document were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent.

They were actually insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. The document had no bill of rights and it actually gave more power to the general or central government. It was a political coup d’état. No wonder Patrick Henry said he smelled a rat.

It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, bankers and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

In the interests of truth, the document that should be taught before the US Constitution is in fact the Articles of Confederation that was conceived in 1776 and adopted in 1781. As William Buppert explains:

As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederation’s design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum A. confederation according to the Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:

  1. The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.

This ‘marriage’ retains the freedom of the entities that would voluntary join to also exit. What is obvious is that the US Constitution did not guarantee this exit clause, otherwise the state constitutions of New York and Virginia would not have had exit rights penned into their own documents. Furthermore, when the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the Articles of Confederation instead of revising it.

Ultimately, actions spoke louder than words when even the much admired Washington was revealed as having none of the talk of independence and wanting a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

There were those who stood in the way, but typical to politics in general, these people are marginalized. Patrick Henry gave the firmest defense of the skeptical posture when he questioned the precarious position the Constitution put to the state’s sovereignty on 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. It should be noted that the savvy ‘Founding Lawyers’ ensured that the process of ratification was sped along by bypassing the bicameral house requirements and simply asking the states to conduct ratifying conventions. Henry’s text says:

“How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — A Government that has abandoned all its powers — The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights — without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards — still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . “

We, in 2019, are feeling the full effects of this constitution’s real purpose with the emergence of the government spying on its citizens and the whole Red Flag law emergence. Total control implies that all guns are in the government’s hands so that “All your defence is given up”

Helpless tax slaves is the aim of the government we have today, thanks in part to the efforts of Madison, Hamilton and John Jay.

It appears that James Madison tried to reverse himself somewhat by introducing ten amendments called the Bill of Rights, but it was too little, too late, and only represented a piece of paper:

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”~ Lysander Spooner

-SF1

You Know You Are Only a Tax Slave – When Government Only Sees the (Selective) Producer’s Side in Economics

All the talk from US President on tariffs lately and how China ripped the US off on $5B worth of trade yada, yada, yada. I honestly felt like puking. Here is this reality TV star .. errr I mean president of the USA totally falling for the whole “trade deficit” economic term made popular every now and then to distract citizens (direct tax slaves) from what is really going on.

One would think that twelve years (and more in many cases) of public education would have introduced kids and young adults to the realities of economics, but you must understand that this is “government” education. Need I say more?

I am so glad that Justin Amash (Republican Representitive – MI) called out Pres. Trump on this aversion of his tariff war and his protectionist tendencies and their unintended consequences:

Why is the president of the US, philosophically, the “people’s choice” (part of the balancing attribute of this “experiment” to tweak “representative government” of the executive, legislative and judicial branches), totally all in on making sure that certain producers in the US are protected from foreign competition?

Well, truth be known, there is and has been a consistent propensity since the nation’s birth toward having the general government (as it was called back in 1787 when the coup de’tat that jettisoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution in secret) building protective bridges with the republics budding industries (like railroad, steel manufacturing, canal building, etc).

The Whig party from the early 19th century was all about the big business – general government “partnership” (dysfunctional co-dependency) that utilized tariff income, mainly from the southern ports to fund canal projects in the north and subsidize the steel industry since it was new and vulnerable to foreign competition. Abraham was big into this mercantilism philosophy that continued to grow (imagine a government program growing like a cancer) and demand more and more tariff revenue that led to the “Tariff of Abominations” in the 1828 that South Carolina almost decided NOT to pay this tariff:

It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods. Industries in the northern United States were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods; the major goal of the tariff was to protect these industries by taxing those goods. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.

One would think that especially our political leaders would want to learn from history, but in fact, they want short term political bonds with big business to secure funding for the next political election season. By definition, a democracy (which this republic has become) is never interested in long term consequences to the decisions made, it is almost as bad as full on Marxism, socialism and communism in the way it treats future generations of a nation/region.

Last year when Pres. Trump first issues this threat of a tariff increase, Martin Armstrong (of Armstrong Economics) shed some truth on the matter:

The big problem is that Trump FAILS to understand how the economy truly functions. Imposing tariffs on foreign imports because they can produce something more efficiently is NOT protecting American jobs – its is imposing higher costs on the American public.

If America cannot compete against foreign steel and aluminum, the answer is not tariffs, but TAX REFORM and UNION REFORM. If unions fail to understand that demanding higher wages in an UN-competitive manner will only lead to the loss of jobs, then end result cannot be prevented by tariffs.

Once upon a time, New York City was the largest port in the United States. Because of unions and outrageous demands, little by little they killed their own jobs. Shipping moved to New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Virginia. What used to be a viable industry today is just a shadow of what it once was. No matter what the field, everything is subject to competition. Imposing tariffs is simply subsidizing overpaid jobs and higher taxes.

Another popular independent media personality, Pete Raymond, also pointed out to Pres. Trump that 150 years ago, Bastiat had already settled this issue:

What is hilarious is that even Bastiat in 1845 when he wrote this piece, (called “Candlestick Makers’ Petition” directed at the French Parliament) said:

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

Even in 1845 (and in 1828) there were plenty of books, musty books, on shelves unused and unread by government officials. The same holds true today, the idiots are elected while the wise refuse to wield power, the ugly and self-serving political type.

I do hope that some of you are aware of the Candlestick Makers’ Petition as Frederic Bastiat had a way in his short life to make economics simple enough that even a politician could understand. A teaser clip is below. Enjoy Mother’s Day celebrations today!

-SF1

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun …

Priceless!

11FEB1781 – 01MAR1781: With Cornwallis Chasing Nathaniel Greene in NC …

One might think that South Carolina would be out of the limelight with Lord Cornwallis giving chase to the Continentals (Greene and Lee) in North Carolina, but this means all the more that the remaining rebel forces in this colony needs to keep the British hold there in doubt.

It was 11FEB1781 when Francis Marion received a letter that said Thomas Sumter, fellow militia leader in South Carolina, was back in action and that the “Gamecock” was the highest ranking officer in the state/colony. Thomas Sumter was not happy that Daniel Morgan had been given permission by the Continental Army to operate in the Catawba region of SC and made it look easy by what he pulled off at Cowpens, SC in JAN1781:

.. a huge patriot victory at Cowpens, South Carolina on January 17th where Daniel Morgan achieved a double pincer movement that utilized militia in the front lines to supply 2-3 volleys and then retreat which then brought Tarleton’s dragoons into a trap (remember that from the movie ‘The Patriot’?) and resulting of 85% loss in the dragoon’s 1050 man force (100 dead, 230 wounded and 600 captured). Also captured was two field cannon, 800 muskets and 100 horses.

What has to be remembered is that the united States (emphasizing the thirteen sovereign “states” and not necessarily the united or union component) under the Articles of Confederation which was to be formally ratified the next month (March 1781) did NOT give the federation’s government power over the state’s armed forces. Sumter was technically senior to Marion in the SC State militia even though Marion still held a commission in the Continental Army and Sumter had resigned his in 1778. At this point, recently promoted SC militia leader Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion would be reporting to Thomas Sumter who then reported to the SC governor, John Rutledge, who was in exile in North Carolina.

So with Cornwallis chasing Greene and Lee in NC, Sumter directed Marion to assist him in attacking smaller British outposts in SC.  Sumter had just laid siege to Fort Granby on the Congaree River on Feb 19th. Sumter desired Marion’s actions to distract Rawdon, the British officer in charge at Camden, SC.

Unknown to Sumter was that Rowden was on the move and had forced Marion to retreat 20 miles right after Marion had tried to recruit more men west of the Santee.  Marion’s recruiting was not going well because a rogue Whig militia leader named Snipes had been plundering the civilian areas telling people he was under orders from Marion! Marion countered by re-emphasizing his philosophy of no looting and no taking provisions from plantations without direct orders from himself. He also published a proclamation that said unidentified parties not associated with his militia would be identified by name and at that time all would be free to put them to death without prosecution. It had come to that.

Marion then moved back to Snow’s Island with Rowden in pursuit of him. The “Swamp Fox” was almost caught when Rowden was directed to go after Sumter who was threatening Ninety-Six. In Rowden’s reports he lists Marion’s strength at 300 and all mounted.

It wasn’t until Feb 26th that Marion received Sumter’s orders from a letter dated Feb 20th. In the mean time Sumter had given up a siege of Fort Granby which he attempted without artillery and also an aborted effort to storm a stockade at Belleville SC.  Marion responded that the British pressure was too great to his west at this time but would venture out at the next opportunity.  Marion was definitely not enthusiastic about Sumter, considered him a “showboater” and word of his recent attacks seemed like a fools errand.  Marion knew his men did not like being at large distances from home but Marion saw this as an order and moved somewhat slowly 100 miles west toward Sumter, to give the appearance that he was attempting to follow orders.

Thomas Sumter was impatient and therefore struck at Fort Watson on Feb 28th, but called off action after 18 of his men were killed. Sumter again penned a letter emphasizing that Marion needed to connect with him but then on March 1st, Sumter heard of a British unit heading his way so he retreated to the High Hills region above the Santee, grabbed his paralytic wife and their son and rode another 40 miles to Black River at Bradley’s Plantation. More than likely Sumter and Marion passed each other in the night and did not know it.

These actions, although small on paper, demonstrated that South Carolina could not be counted on by the British as a reconquered province. Marion and the other militia leaders would continue to harass the British in their rear .. no pun intended!

March1781 would be a HUGE month for the rebel cause against the British Empire in the American Colonies.

– SF1

1866 Reflections: What Have We Done?

While I contend that there was a very major shift in “self government” after the thirteen American colonies were able to get out of the British Empire and out of fear opt for leaning toward a large centralized government by 1787, it was nothing like what happened as a result of the so-called “Civil” War.

Accurately called the War Against Southern Independence, this conflict so twisted the Yankee psyche that the northern states (with support of the Midwest and Far West states) pushed hard on shutting down state sovereignty with post war Constitutional amendments. The United States acted and operated very different than it did from 1783 to 1787 with the Articles of Confederation, and with the coup d’etat by Alexander Hamilton and others towards a British style top-down government structure the shift towards centralization in Washington DC was underway. Only 80 years later as the north gained political strength, the southern political forces saw the writing on the wall and desired an exit from the republic.

The north could not bear to let the south leave and their printing presses also influenced the Midwest and West towards fearing the future without them. Peace commissioners were rejected by Lincoln as he pursued war towards retaining the states and their ports from which to collect tariff revenue that was needed to support the general government (now called federal) as well as “internal improvements” which were primarily northern industrial subsidies.

The war raged, sections of the country were ravaged, and by December 1865 the slaves in Union Army territory were finally free (by legislation, well after Lincoln’s death). Union General U.S. Grant finally had to free his slaves four years after the war started because Lincoln only freed the slaves where he had NO control over, those in 1863 that were behind Confederate battle lines.

The southern states paid dearly for daring to do what the norther states had considered in 1796, 1800, and especially in 1814. One fourth of their men were gone or crippled, their property was wrecked both public and private, their infrastructure was shattered as this region became occupied territory not unlike what had been done by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in this century. The war was done, but much more was lost than was won. Basically, the husband beat his wife back into the marriage.

About this time, a humble gentleman who had loved the Union but could not draw a sword against his own state, his own country, his own people and his own family began to reflect on what had just happened:

IN A LETTER TO LORD ACTON written in 1866, former Confederate General Robert E. Lee noted his concern that if the United States used its victory over the Confederate States of America to destroy the American principle of States’ Rights, then the United States would morph into a country that would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[

Kennedy, James R.. Yankee Empire: Aggressive Abroad and Despotic At Home (Kindle Locations 107-110). Shotwell Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

The book I quoted is the just released “Yankee Empire: Aggressive Abroad and Despotic At Home” by James and Walter Kennedy.

Personally, I have been studying this war since my parents bought me Childcraft books that came bundled with World Book Encyclopedia set. As a six year old I skipped the Childcraft and immersed myself in the World Book set that were by alphabet. Having been born in Georgia, I took towards trying to understand how Georgia went from being a British colony to becoming part of the united States and was perplexed that it later left that federations for another.

Over time I used library resources in high school and in the city where I was raised to attempt to understand all sides to this conflict and found out like most wars that the seed were planted far in advance of South Carolina’s secession in December 1860.

So between my posts on

  • the American Revolution with a series on Francis Marion the guerrilla fighter that kept the British from “slam-dunking” the War for Independence,
  • posts concerning current affairs, US foreign policy, the conflict in Syria and Russia’s struggle to remain sovereign

… I will now select December as the month that I will follow the events as they unfolded in South Carolina over 150 years ago towards an independence modeled after the spirit and passion of 1776.

-SF1