Tag: Thomas Jefferson

Traits of an Empire: Rarely if Ever Honorable

From my last post lamenting the benefits of small nations or federations of small republics and city-states, it became rather obvious that the formation of the Articles of Confederation which linked thirteen colonies together to fight against the British Empire was a noble effort, and that Switzerland decided early on to retain this focus unlike the United States:

After the revolutionary war, many founders abandoned the Swiss model as being too week and opted again towards the large-state model..

In today’s post, I use primarily an article from Darius Shahtahmasebi that explains the impact that many of the US Empire’s wars have had on Muslims over time. Darius does a great job of balancing the fact that it is not that the Muslims were targeted, but like the American Indians, it has more to do with the content their lands have for potential empire resources or disruptions in trade routes.

There are then several phases of the US Empire’s history that I hope to unpack today as a lesson we can all learn from so we can better understand the true character of the empire’s endeavors.

The first phase happened when the united States, having been victorious in its quest for independence from the British Empire, was potentially left unprotected in world trade. The source I chose for this was an article that helps to identify what really might have gone town in the tension between the US (which many consider to be a Christian nation) and the Barbary Powers (that happened to be primarily Muslim in religious terms). The truth is that these Barbary ‘corsairs’ were not only Muslim but also included English privateers and Dutch captains who exploited the changing loyalties of an era in which friends could become enemies and enemies friends with the stroke of a pen.

In the Barbary ‘pirate’ era, these entrepreneurs were not content with attacking ships and sailors, the corsairs also sometimes raided coastal settlements in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, and even as far away as the Netherlands and Iceland. They landed on unguarded beaches, and crept up on villages in the dark to capture their victims. This did not begin with these powers that ended up enslaving over one million Europeans, but was preceded by Christian pirates, primarily from Catalonia and Sicily, that dominated the seas, posing a constant threat to merchants in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Back to the Barbary powers of the Ottoman Empire of the 15th century:

During the era of the American colonies, American merchant vessels received protection by virtue of being of being British; the British were among the countries that paid tribute. Then, during the American Revolution, an alliance with France protected American ships. But full independence brought an end to that.

Initially, the United States decided to pay tribute. But American leaders, including Jefferson, seethed at having to do it, saying it would only inspire more and more outrageous financial demands. On July 11, 1786, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, “I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” The following month, he wrote to James Monroe that the Barbary powers “must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them.”

Jefferson truly believed that the sea trade routes should be free. However, during the George Washington and John Adams administrations, the tribute was paid as was done by all the European powers, in fact, the rift was identified as economic in nature and not seen as religious:

As early as 1797, the United States made clear in a treaty with Tripoli that “as the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Mohammedan or Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Once Jefferson became the US President, he decided that enough was enough:

After Jefferson became president in 1801, he rejected Tripoli’s demand for payment. The pasha of Tripoli countered by declaring war on the United States. Jefferson sent forces to the Mediterranean, and after sporadic combat, hostilities ended four years later with a negotiated settlement in which the United States paid a smaller tribute than had initially been demanded.

The era of Barbary corsairs effectively ended a decade later, when, after the U.S. Navy, battle-hardened from the War of 1812, won a quick victory against Algiers, effectively ending all tribute payments.

By 1815, after the US’s war against the British Empire, the US flexed its muscles and used force to protect US shipping going forward. Shortly after this, the US found itself in a war with Mexico in the late 1840s and by 1860, fought an attempt to split the United States into two confederations. By this time there were powerful elites who saw that the economies of scale incentivized a violent end to the effort to have an adjacent federation have in effect a free trade zone.

The trend in hindsight becomes clear as the United States, in its second phase, turns its eyes to the Plains Indians after successfully placing the South in military districts, as this article explains:

In an attempt at peace in 1851, the first Fort Laramie Treaty was signed, which granted the Plain Indians about 150 million acres of land for their own use as the Great Sioux Reservation. Then, 13 years later, the size was greatly reduced to about 60 million acres in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which recreated the Great Sioux Reservation boundaries and proclaimed all of South Dakota west of the Missouri river, including the Black Hills, solely for the Sioux Nation.

As part of the treaty, no unauthorized non-Indian was to come into the reservation and the Sioux were allowed to hunt in unceded Indian territory beyond the reservation that stretched into North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. If any non-Indian wanted to settle on this unceded land, they could only do it with the permission of the Sioux.

That was until 1874, when gold was discovered in South Dakota’s Black Hills. The treaties that were signed between the Native Americans and the U.S. government were ignored as gold rushers invaded Indian Territory and issues arose, such as the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

As time went on, the American Indians continued to be pushed into smaller territories and their lives began to diminish. In 1889, the U.S. government issued the Dawes Act, which took the Black Hills from the Indians, broke up the Great Sioux Reservation into five separate reservations, and took nine million acres and opened it up for public purchase by non-Indians for homesteading and settlements.

The Native Americans were squeezed into these smaller territories and didn’t have enough game to support them. The bison that had been a staple to their way of life were gone. Their ancestral lands that sustained them were no longer theirs. The resistance was over. They were no longer free people, living amongst themselves, but “Redskins” confined by the “white man” in reservations they had been forced to, many against their will.

At this point, one might logically think that the US is done with its expansion as it now is in total control of all the lands from the east to the west coast of North America. However, there were plenty of elites that were very willing in their agenda for:

… capitalizing on a national tragedy to push through an unrelated agenda. The explosion of the Maine in Havana’s harbor — killing some 260 sailors — was the immediate catalyst for the invasion of Cuba and then the Philippines.

Y’all do know that the USS Maine was NOT sabotaged by the Spanish in Cuba, right?

The result was a third phase in this trend toward empire.

Again, you have a list of critical thinkers that understand the down-side of empire, called the Anti-Imperialist effort in 1898, outlined in this article:

“We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is ‘criminal aggression’ and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.

“We earnestly condemn the policy of the present National Administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish methods…”

.. to your typical statist media b*llshit we still see today:

Today, the medium from which most Americans get their news, television, plays much the same role as the “yellow press” of William Randolph Hearst — cheerleading for war. Then, as now, the argument justifying war started as a matter of self-defense, then morphed into a war for “freedom,” and finally stood naked as a political and economic power grab

So on and on it goes, the US Empire emerges well in advance of WWII, already using shady ways to promote its power on the world’s stage.

The latest chapter is probably not that last, but the character of this empire will be remembered for generations:

U.S.-led wars in the Middle East have killed some four million Muslims since 1990. The recently published Afghanistan papers, provided an insight into the longest war in U.S. history and revealed how U.S. officials continuously lied about the progress being made in Afghanistan, lacked a basic understanding of the country, were hiding evidence that the war was unwinnable, and had wasted as much as $1 trillion in the process.

This parallels a little known previous ‘longest war’ that was initiated a century before:

.. the U.S. waged a war from 1899 to 1913 in the southernmost island of the Philippines. Known as the Moro War, it was the longest sustained military campaign in American history until the war in Afghanistan surpassed it a few years ago. As a result, the U.S. and the Philippine governments are still embroiled in a battle with Islamist insurgents in the southern Philippines, which takes the meaning of “forever war” to a whole new level

.. the U.S. military was not welcome in the Philippines, much as it is not welcomed by Afghanistan or any other Muslim-majority nation which has to duel with the U.S. Empire. After the U.S. defeated the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay and annexed the Philippines under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the Moro population were not even consulted. The U.S. then sought to “pacify” them using brute force.

“I want no prisoners,” ordered General Jacob Smith on Samar Island during the war in 1902. “I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please me.”

The tactics remain the same, total war from Sherman and Sheridan used in the so-called Civil War, to the war on the American Indians, to the war in the Philippines, to Afghanistan and beyond is somehow construed to be “American Exceptionalism”.

I think I am sick to my stomach.

Enough for now.

Peace out.

-SF1

When Jefferson Got It Wrong: The Danger of Trusting the Masses and Voting

While Thomas Jefferson got so many things right, as a human, we all have our blind-spots. Maybe at times he was just hopeful that things would work out, that the pendulum would come back from the extremes and allow the people the natural rights and freedoms that their Creator had intended for them in the best of times.

A key point of reflection is discussed in this latest blog post by Brion McClanahan, where Jefferson is challenged in his thought processes by Jon Taylor of Caroline.

It seems that in June of 1798, at the peak of the Federalist’s power move that launched atrocities like the Alien and Sedition Act that made it a crime to be critical of the government (only 20 years after all the American Colonies publicly were critical of the British government), John Taylor wrote that the union seemed to be on the verge of dissolving. It was most obvious by this point that party power had already prompted the rush to use general government for the good of one region of the united States so young in its journey.

Thomas Jefferson quickly penned back a response that admitted that the New England states were seeing the South as something that could be tapped:

… that they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings as well as exhausting our strength and substance. their natural friends, the three other Eastern states, join them from a sort of family pride, and they have the art to divide certain other parts of the Union, so as to make use of them to govern the whole.

However, Jefferson claimed this would soon be corrected by voting.

Brion explains:

They would only suffer so long under the heel of these petty tyrants, and he insisted that a “scission” of the Union would do little to arrest the problems of political division, what Jefferson considered to be a natural occurrence in a “deliberating” society. If New England were removed from the Union, Jefferson argued that a division between Virginia and Pennsylvania would soon rise and that would be met by another round of division until the entire Union would be torn asunder for even the Southern States would feel the sting of partisanship and division.

Jefferson continued:

I had rather keep our New-England associates for that purpose, than to see our bickerings transferred to others. they are circumscribed within such narrow limits, & their population so full, that their numbers will ever be the minority ..

Well, at this point, history has proven that John Taylor’s viewpoint was correct, and he articulated it in a rather long letter back to Jefferson. In summary Brion shares:

Taylor considered the partisanship of New England to be a byproduct of both geography and “interest,” and unlike Jefferson he did not think that party divisions were natural occurrences. He cited Connecticut as an example of a fairly unanimous electorate and thought that the rigid—almost religious—belief in “checks and balances” failed to fully arrest the sword of despotism in the United States. In other words, the Constitution was doomed from the beginning .. liberty had to be the direct end of government and if the Union failed to protect liberty, then it was a worthless bond of oppression.

John Taylor did not believe that party politics could fix the “unequally yoked” union between regions that had very different interests and principles.  He also pinpointed the key part of the Constitution that resulted in a nationalist central government that is prone to pillaging:

Taxes are the subsistence of party. As the miasma of marshes contaminate the human body, those of taxes corrupt and putrify the body politic. Taxation transfers wealth from a mass to a selection. It destroys the political Equality, which alone can save liberty; and yet no constitution, whilst devising checks upon power, has devised checks sufficiently strong upon the means which create it. Government, endowed with a right to transfer, bestow, and monopolise wealth in perpetuity is in fact, unlimited. It soon becomes a feudal lord over a nation in villenage.

John Taylor, over 200 years ago predicted our situation as it stands today:

But since government is getting [sic] into the habit of peeping into private letters, and is manufacturing a law, which may even make it criminal to pray to God for better times, I shall be careful not to repeat so dangerous a liberty.—I hope it may not be criminal to add a supplication [sic] for an individual—not—for I will be cautious—as a republican, but as a man.

Edward Snowden revealed that this aspect of a dysfunctional government that is only interested in perpetuating itself at all costs makes us neither free or brave!

Voting better is something politicians and public education imprints into our brains, for they know it is week and ineffective so that their agenda as a massive tax collecting parasite can continue.

Once the states were stripped of their power to nullify and secede, nothing stood in the way of total central control by the moneyed elites in this land.

-SF1

Most People Are Nice People – Why it is So Hard to Understand that the State is Organized Crime

If you had asked me 20 years ago if I thought that the US government was a criminal organization, I would have laughed and called you a conspiracy theorist (a CIA term to discredit those who have doubts about the official government narrative).

Since then I have read a lot about our history (American and pre-American) from a variety of sources that have links to established source materials. At the end of the day, I can say with certainty, that there are elements of our government, and some of the elite who pull the strings they have at hand, that pure evil does exist in this world. This evil prefers to operate behind the mask of the state to accomplish its evil deeds. All too willingly there are political minded people that start out to make the nation or world a better place then over time will either be blackmailed or bought out to follow along with this evil agenda, taking on a mask of themselves as being one who “helps” “the people”.

This propensity for evil to find power structures to use for their own personal agendas is nothing new. Reading the accounts of God’s own nation of Israel or even the atrocities of the Roman Empire can give you a flavor of the depravity of the human soul.

Assisting me in coming to terms with this reality, in light of my indoctrination fo American Exceptionalism in government school systems, have been articles and searches from Lew Rockwell’s site over the past almost two decades. I have always been amazed by the sheer volume of material available for free from his site or others like the Mises Institute that can help anyone research for themselves how the world really operates, as well as the United States government, the Deep State and even Deep Politics.

There has been an article that I bookmarked earlier this week that referenced another lengthy article that intrigued me earlier this year that I never had time to really look at in detail. Let’s just say, I am still overwhelmed by the HTTP links, books and articles that cover not only US history but also world history that unveils what has happened behind the curtain for so many decades and centuries. Let me just say, the trust factor of government in general just keeps ratcheting down the more I read. I think I now know how many of the founders felt when they attempted a “good version” of government after it’s War for Independence from the British Empire.

“Who Rules America: Power Elite Analysis, the Deep State, and American History” by Charles Burris helps to unpack the trajectory of powerful men who have heavily influence many things behind the scenes that shows the heart of government is in fact, organized crime.

Here is a clip of the historical events that led to the effort in the American colonies in the 1770s to try and accomplish something new:

Why Power Elite Analysis (Libertarian Class Analysis) is Distinct From And Superior to Marxist Analysis

  1. Libertarian Class Theory Antedates Marxist Theory
  2. The English Civil War (The Levelers)
  3. Jean-Baptiste Say,  Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer
    1. The Industrial Society Versus the Statist Society
    2. The Competitive Free Market Versus the Monopolistic Society
    3. The Free Market Pitted Against Mercantilism and Feudalism
  4. Henri de Saint-Simon and the Distortion of Class Theory
  5. From Saint-Simon to Karl Marx
  6. Elitism and the Myth of Pluralism
  7. Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class
  8. Later 19th Century Libertarian Class Analysis
    1. Herbert Spencer: Military Society Versus the Industrial Society
    2. Sir Henry Maine: From Status to Contract
    3. Richard Cobden: War and the Interests

I have to admit, I have scrimped when it comes to researching history before the 1770s, and have found myself ill prepared to understand why the wheels came off the American Revolution’s “cause” so fast after the war had ended. In less than a decade, some of the same people that were pro-liberty, took up the reigns of government to be used as the British Empire did, to control the people, to enrich themselves at their expense, and establish a central strong government and central bank to keep people like them in power for generations to come in America. At the end of the day, America looked more like Europe with each passing decade. I guess the imperialism DNA is a strong thing to resist for even noble causes and honorable principles.

Even the honorable Thomas Jefferson tried to do the right thing as President of the United States and came away discouraged for how he had led this young country in those early years. As a older man he was actually thinking that yet another revolution could bring about two or three confederations out of the exiting united States.

In part two of Charles outline, he focuses mainly on the United States trajectory of becoming a hidden organized crime unit led by the power elite:

Part Two

  1. Early American Historical Overview

Theme of Liberty Versus Power –  (Ivan Jankovic, The American Counter-Revolution in Favor of Liberty: How Americans Resisted Modern State, 1765–1850); The Country Party Versus Court Party: The Declaration of Independence and the Revolution (Bernard Bailyn, The Origins of American Politics; The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution; Angelo M. Codevilla, The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About it)

  1. Counter-Revolution
    1. U.S. Constitution (Sheldon Richman, America’s Counter Revolution: The Constitution Revisited; John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States; Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; Saul Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism & the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828; What The Antifederalists Were For)
    2. Alexander Hamilton and the Plutocratic Federalists: “The Funding Fathers” (John McConaughy, Who Rules America: A Century of Invisible Government; Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – and What It Means for America Today; Brion McClanahan, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America)
    3. The Early Nationalist Period (Stanley Elkins & Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800; Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815; Phillip H. Burch, Elites in American History: The Federalist Years to the Civil War)
    4. Republicanism: From Jefferson to Van Buren
  2. Jeffersonian Drive to Roll Back the Federalist Program and Rid America of its Powerful Ruling Elite (Lance Banning, The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology)
  3. Failure of Jefferson/Madison Regimes and the Rise of the Old Republicans or “Tertium Quids” (Norman K. Risjord, The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson)
    1. John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia (John Taylor, Tyranny Unmasked)
    2. John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia
    3. The Panic of 1819, James Monroe, and the “Era of Good Feelings“

This exhaustive set of links ends with the current era highlighting the Obama and Trump administrations:

It is beyond a doubt, that even if one were to investigate only a fraction of these things, it would remain as the tip of the iceburg as to what was really accomplished via politics in secret.

What I appreciate about Charles Burris is that he then goes on to outline some of the historical events that were made possible by the power elite. Going back from the present to WWI, one can only imaging the lives lost or scared by these sociopaths in our midst:

The question for someone in the present is not whether the US should have intervened in these conflicts but what have we learned from this previous century of war, destruction, and the needless death of millions?

What we now know concerning the horrific wars of the previous century, as well as 21st century conflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, provides us with a historical template to guide us in making future principled decisions concerning intervention or non-intervention.

Briefly, working backwards, what have revelations concerning non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, deliberately falsified intelligence from the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, and an elaborately coordinated media disinformation campaign done for the case for US intervention in Iraq in 2003? For falsified (and/or still classified) information concerning the September 11th attacks leading to intervention against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Afghanistan?

What has declassified revelations from the archives of the former Soviet Union and the Venona files in the United States done to totally reshape the narrative story of espionage and the Cold War?

What has archival revelations concerning the Pentagon Papers and the deliberately contrived Gulf of Tonkin Incident done to spurious justification for the massive intervention in the Vietnam conflict?

What has fifty years of revelations concerning the November 22, 1963 coup d’état and brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy by Lyndon Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State done to totally reassess the dynamic behind the change in US policy toward Vietnam within days of JFK’s assassination? How have the powerful behind-the-scenes revelations concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 aided in seeing a more complete picture regarding Kennedy’s murder and the subsequent change of policy toward Vietnam?

How have incisive revelations concerning the birth of the National Security State in 1947 impacted the story of the Cold War? How have revelations concerning the use of former Nazi intelligence officers in the Reinhard Gehlen organization grafted upon US military intelligence and the CIA, been shown to have provided unreliable and provocative disinformation which fueled early Cold War tensions?

How have decisive revelations concerning the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor reshaped the narrative of US intervention into WWII?

How have revelations concerning the Hitler/Stalin Non-Aggression Pact and the joint German and Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939 affected our historical portrait of the larger story of how the Second World War began?

How have revelations concerning American and British financial, corporate, and political elites substantially aiding and rebuilding the Nazi war machine in the years prior to WWII as a bulwark against the Soviets change our view of the deep historical background?

How have revelations of the decades of joint military training and cooperation by intelligence services between Germany (during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich) and the Soviet Union impact upon the lead up to WWII?

How did the Treaty of Versailles and agreements such as Sykes-Picot affect the interwar course of events leading to the Second World War?

How did the internecine network of secret treaties, entente cordiales, and clandestine military alliances drawn up prior to the First World War lead to this conflagration?

To this legacy one can only conclude that maybe America is not really exceptional at all, but just another self-serving nation who stuck their nose in other nation’s business totally contrary to the wishes of even the very statist George Washington!

The great American Experiment has indeed run its course. It would be nice if the next revolution was one of minds and hearts and not violent, however, man is prone toward the shortcuts of utilizing sanctions and war to accomplish the ‘greater good’.

-SF1

Long Term Effects of Hamiltonianism: St. George Tucker’s Antidote – Jeffersonianism

The pendulum swing of politics has revealed much as to the gullibility of the masses who are swept up by emotion but rarely have principles by which to live by when the going gets tough.

It seems that Thomas Paine’s writings in 1776 helped put people in a position to better understand the battles, the war and the cause for which thirteen British colonies aligned with each other, for a moment in time, to repel the British Empire from their midst. By the end of this conflict, there were many who were disillusioned with the cause, either by British tactics used by Patriot forces or even having their property pillaged by the Whig faction that made them choose to be a Tory. The pendulum swung in villages, colonies as well as on this continent as people heard the news, fake or not.

At the end of the day, one wonders if those with power can be trusted to make decisions on their behalf, which is at its root, representative government. We have seen ourselves where HOAs and churches can become hotbeds of contention and power moves that can swiftly cripple the week and the meek. I believe this is why many founding fathers, but definitely not all, preferred the grass roots approach. Keeping the “representative” local, so someone could have the proximity to put a boot up their a** if need be, is essential for accountability.

As the War for Independence concluded, and the Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution that was created in Philadelphia in 1787, in secret, many “grassroot” promoters found themselves in the minority.

A recent article about St. George Tucker helps shed light not only on the two types of dreams for America that the “cause” help birth, but also the prophetical vision that this man had for seeing the end of the line for either of these visions. Allen Mendenhall’s article “St. George Tucker’s Jeffersonian Constitution” helps to frame my thoughts on what we gained, and what we lost, after the fight for independence from 1775-1783:

One could argue that there are two basic visions for America: the Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian. The former is nationalist, calling for centralized power and an industrial, mercantilist society characterized by banking, commercialism, and a robust military. Its early leaders had monarchical tendencies. The latter vision involves a slower, more leisurely and agrarian society, political decentralization, popular sovereignty, and local republicanism. Think farmers over factories.

Both were birthed in the message of liberty. Both indicated the support of the common person in their leadership to create something new here in America that was different from the ways of the Old World, especially in Europe. You can see the thread by who you might consider our heroes:

Hamiltonian:

  • John Adams, John Marshall, Noah Webster, Henry Clay, Joseph Story, and Abraham Lincoln

Jeffersonian:

  • George Mason and Patrick Henry (who, because they were born before Jefferson, could be considered his precursors), the mature (rather than the youthful) James Madison, and then John Taylor of Caroline, John C. Calhoun, Abel Upshur, and Robert Y. Hayne.

So the Federalists (who were not really federalists, but as you know with political parties, their name does not always reveal their core) surged into power on the tails of the Constitution that helped assure a more powerful centralized general government but then over played their hand especially during “Alien and Sedition Act” John Adams administration. The Anti-Federalists, called the Democratic-Republican Party (or simply the Republican party) by the time Thomas Jefferson sought the presidency would sweep into office and would change the political landscape some for the next 30 years or so before the Whigs would emerge and eventually the Republican party that nominated Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

From St. George Tucker’s time, he could see the years and the decades unfolding in his mind. Here are a few of his thoughts:

Under this [Compact Theory of the US Constitution] model, each sovereign, independent state is contractually and consensually committed to confederacy, and the federal government possesses only limited and delegated powers—e.g., “to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations.”

That is indeed one way to interpret the US Constitution, as even Alexander Hamilton would talk this way about it, until it passed and until he was in power with George Washington.

.. summarizing competing contentions about the Sedition Act, Tucker subtly supported the position that “the United States as a federal government have no common law” and that “the common law of one state . . . is not the common law of another.” The common law, in Tucker’s paradigm, is bottom-up and home-grown; it’s not a formula that can be lifted from one jurisdiction and placed down anywhere else with similar results and effects.

This is another core principle that IF had been understood by the political elite of the 20th/21st century, it would not have thought that the USA could bring “democracy” to any other nation in the world.  Even in the United States, the STATES represent different cultures, morals and standards. We would have done well in keeping it that way, but our ancestors believed Hamilton and Lincoln over Jefferson and Calhoun.

Allen ends his article with the wisdom that can be gained in understanding what we lost after the War for Independence:

Reading Tucker reminds us that for most of our country’s formative history the principal jurisprudential debates were not about natural law versus positivism, or originalism versus living constitutionalism, but about state versus federal authority, local versus national jurisdiction, the proper scale and scope of government, checks and balances, and so forth. To the extent these subjects have diminished in importance, Hamilton has prevailed over Jefferson. Reading Tucker today can help us see the costs of that victory.

It seems that only the recovery of the wisdom and the thoughts of these 18th century thinkers can lead this land towards a better day for us, our kids and our grand-kids. The US Empire’s current trajectory is self-defeating in the long term and not sustainable.

Local city-state and region-state philosophy is a much needed idea, but the powers residing in the political elites funded by an evil moneyed elites will not give up their multi-century grasp for total control and power easily.

Something will have to give.

-SF1

Amexit: Post War of Independence from British Empire – Politically Hijacked

[A] large group of soldiers who saw the goal of the Revolution as getting rid of the power of a centralised government to rule over Americans. They had a fellow American feeling with comrades in other states for shared sacrifices and they were willing to entertain a federal (not national) government to handle some of the joint affairs of the States, but insisted that such a government must be kept within a strictly circumscribed role.

Yes, even Francis Marion, as you shall see, was himself marginalized at the end of the War for Independence from the British Empire. There were efforts already in the works politically to turn this “win” into something of their own choosing that was much different than what the soldiers and militias were fighting for.

The above quote is from a 2014 article about James Jackson who immigrated to the Georgia colony as a 15 year old. My guess is that you never heard of him. Maybe some of these names you will recognize from your academic experiences:

Nicholas Gilman of New Hampshire, John Lansing of New York, Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania, John Francis Mercer of Maryland, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, Thomas Sumter of South Carolina, and James Monroe, St. George Tucker, and John Taylor of Virginia.

Well maybe you have heard of Thomas Sumter and possibly John Taylor, but the others have been obscured by the academic history books for some time. The likes of these people had the following qualities:

A patriot did not seek public fame and fortune. His task was alertness to preserve the principles of free government against all comers. He did not seek power, but if called to public office he took it as a duty to his society, not as an opportunity for self-advancement. His ambition was for his country, not himself. The example here was the Roman hero Cincinnatus, who was called from his farm to lead an army and having won the victory went home and resumed his plowing.

This type of person was one that could see quickly into an existing situation and rightly identify the bad actors behind the scenes. These men, with their prophetic ability, typically would see the red flags much sooner than someone like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison as explained here:

[James] Jackson was nearly alone in 1790 in discerning and exposing the implications of what was afoot; joined only by William Maclay of Pennsylvania in the Senate. As one historian has put it:

The astonishing thing is that the comparatively crude Maclay from the wilds of Pennsylvania and the leather-lunged James Jackson from sparsely settled Georgia should have caught the full significance of it all before it dawned on Jefferson and Madison.

So even three years after the coup d’etat at Philadelphia where the “perpetual” Articles of Confederation was shredded in favor of a NEW document formed in secret called a constitution, there were two yet in the government who saw this new direction for the union for what it was. Patrick Henry had rightly said “I smell a rat” in 1787 as he was the most prophetic of all.

So what helps to form such an honest sort of individual. A mixture of nature and nurture no doubt, as can be seen in a quick biographical sketch here below:

James Jackson was born in 1757 in Devonshire, England. At the age of fifteen he sailed the Atlantic unaccompanied and landed in 1772 at Savannah, Georgia, where some family friends were living. Despite his youth and his recent arrival from the mother country, Jackson enthusiastically joined the cause of American independence. Throughout the war he was active in military service. After the British capture of Savannah, Jackson escaped, reportedly swam the Savannah River, and arrived barefoot and in tatters to join the South Carolina patriot forces as a private, serving 17 months with Thomas Sumter’s partisans. He took part in most of the fighting in the Southern colonies and in expeditions into Florida and to the Indian frontier. He was wounded at least once and repeatedly cited for gallantry and enterprise. Jackson ended the war as a twenty-four-year-old lieutenant colonel in command of his own battalion and was selected to receive the official surrender of Savannah from the departing British, July 11, 1782.

A pioneer, a survivor, a fighter .. “.. a tough, independent citizen ready to defend his society against foreign threats. Equally important, it was characterized by the wisdom to discern and the courage to oppose threats to liberty from inside. History furnished many examples of the undermining of free governments by plausible, designing men ambitious for power and profit. This is why Thomas Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and that the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. A virtuous republican had the makings of such a patriot.” – Clyde Wilson & Brion McClanahan

In 1782, with the War for Independence almost over, James goes back to the plow:

After the war Jackson established himself as a successful lawyer and planter. Georgia was the smallest of the States in population and settled territory (though already filling fast with new settlers) and had an exposed frontier. It quickly ratified the proposed Constitution for the United States without the reservations that concerned many and kept North Carolina out of the Union for several more years. In 1788 the George legislature elected Jackson Governor. He declined on grounds that he was too inexperienced for the august position. The next year he was elected as one of Georgia’s two Representatives to the First Congress. Shipwrecked on his way to New York, he arrived too late for the inaugural day but was soon an outspoken member of the House.

Notice the humble nature of this man, declined his election as governor of Georgia because he felt himself too inexperience! More of this please!

What he found a year later in New York, NY, the first capital of the united States drove him toward using “straight” language:

Jackson found the House discussing the proper way to address the President, with proposals like “His Excellency,” “His Grace,” and “His Serene Highness” being offered by those who wanted to endow the new government with dignity and awe.

He lamented that the probably source of this trend toward having a god in government on earth to displace the God in Heaven was most likely Boston, where as he rightly explains:

.. a town which, fifteen years ago, would have acknowledged no Lord but the Lord of hosts ..

Cutting, but so very true. In fact, after a miraculous win by 13 united colonies against a world power like the British Empire, one can only see that as the Israelites of old, they still could not trust a God that delivered them and proceeded to form a central government that would guarantee this independence for years to come. The downside was that liberty itself would be sacrificed for this perceived safety.

Typical of the pioneer reluctant hero and patriot of the day, his opponents ridiculed his character and speech:

.. some opponents hinted that the Representative from Georgia was too loud and crude. “I have accustomed myself to a blunt integrity of speech,” Jackson told the House, “which I hope the goodness of my intentions will excuse.” The more serious criticisms of the Representative from Georgia were uttered in private. It was known that Jackson had more than once taken his stand on the Savannah dueling ground and had always walked away.

But the disgust for the words to be used in this new republic was pale compared to Alexander Hamilton’s intentions that made the rich richer and the poor/soldier poorer:

The first move came in Hamilton’s proposal to pay off the Continental debt of the Revolution. Everyone agreed that the debt had to be retired, but the devil was in the details. Hamilton’s plan was to pay the holders of the debt in interest-bearing government bonds, thus to create a permanent public debt, which would in turn require tax revenue.

There was an even more serious kicker. The debt was to be funded at face value. The debt, aside from loans from European allies, consisted of paper that had been issued by the Continental Congress for soldiers’ pay and bounties and army supplies. Almost all of it was now in the hands of Northern and European capitalists who had acquired it at cents on the dollar when it was “not worth a Continental.” Jackson pointed out that there were not twenty of the original receivers of Continental paper left in Georgia and that soldiers had invariably been forced by necessity to sell their paper at a large discount.

.. and, there’s more!

Hamilton’s proposal was soon followed by another—the government should assume the remaining debts of the States, now also in the hands of speculators, and fund them in the same way. A proposal in the House to pay some of the proceeds to the original holders was roughly quashed by what was beginning to look like an organized party. Not only that, but, Jackson pointed out, certain money men who obviously had advanced knowledge of Hamilton’s plans had been in Georgia very recently buying up debt certificates.

Yes, by this time the ’cause’ had been fully hijacked by a new political machine that would give Lincoln everything he needed to permanently change this nation into something so much different. The balance of this article show the emergence of government scandals that have unfortunately continued to this day, sucking the life out of taxpayers at every revolution of the sun.

Here in 2019 we can see the fruits of the labors of Hamilton and Lincoln that were seasoned by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and even Trump today. The American Empire is the “same thing only different” from the British one that the American colonies sought to remove themselves from. Now we (US government/empire) are the global and domestic oppressors that operate above the law.

Not cool.

-SF1