Posts Tagged ‘Article of Confederation’

The Secret of WE

July 2, 2016
Short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-y1

 

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

EqualLibertyUnequal

What is the secret of US, WE the People? If we look behind the shades, What are WE?

Here is a mathematical axiom (a self-evident truth that requires no proof). An example would be, even though we may not be able to prove that Hippocrates (the father of medicine) said, “First do no harm,” it is an axiom, a self-evident truth. Here is another axiom: “Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.” Have you ever thought about liberty being part of a mathematical axiom?

Equality = Liberty = Inequality

How is this equal? First, equality:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, 1776

This document reveals an entitlement, equal station (equality) with any other power of earth and it is by the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” This document reveals the source of rights. They are endowed by the “creator” “the laws of nature and nature’s God, and “reliance upon the protection of divine providence.” These rights “endowed by their Creator,” are “unalienable” rights, which cannot be taken, surrendered, traded, bought or sold. No one has more rights than any other and no one has less than any other! There is no difference in the quality or percentage of these rights. All have the same rights! All have the same full measure! Among these rights there is “liberty.” Equality therefore, equals Liberty. But this document also, shows the consequence of liberty which is, separation, which is inequality.

The words “men” and “mankind” may be plural nouns grammatically speaking, but it does not say women or children. This is, inequality. When these words were written, the writer and many of the signers owned slaves. Slaves were not considered by most people in the day to be people, men, women or children. They were thought to be more closely aligned with animals and like animals, property. This is certainly, inequality whether you believe slaves were people or just property. Some people did not have slaves by choice or could not afford to own them. This is inequality too.

So are the rest of the words in this document and the document itself flawed because of its inequality. Or is equality (sovereign rights) equal to liberty which is equal to inequality (not all having the same abilities)? The mathematical axiom is, ‘Things equal to the same things are equal to each other. Remember the words, “separate and equal.”

In 1777, the first Constitution (or confederation, first government form, for the United States) was, formally named, ‘the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.’ It was connected to, ‘The Declaration,’ by the words, “To all to whom these Presents shall come…,” the word “Free and Independent States,” “good people and the words, “In the Year of Our Lord.” This was a longstanding custom to recognize “the Lord.” The same words close out ‘The Constitution’ of 1789 and ‘The Declaration,’ also.  They are all of them connected. The words “Perpetual Union,” were replaced with the 2nd Constitution of 1789, and its words, “…a more perfect union.”

Now let us look at some of the Constitution of the United States.

We the People” “of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,…”

Excerpts from the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789

Following upon the Declaration of Independence, this Constitution connects “WE the People” of this document to the words in ‘The Declaration’ — “one people,” “them,” “we,” “all men,” “among the powers of the earth,” “mankind,” “representatives of the united States of America,” “their,” “good people of,” “these united,” “Independent states,” “Free and Independent States, “they,” and “we.”

Either the words “all men” and “mankind” are just a plural nouns, which would include all men, women and children or it is just another example of inequality. If it is a plural noun (all-inclusive), it is still, inequality. That men were considered superior, women second class and children less so equal— boys first and girls second; then slaves, is exactly what people thought and I would say, this still has a dominate stance in our present society. But all, all men and women and children the whole world over have the same equal rights and opportunity (Liberty) as WE the People do in this country. The only differences are:

1. It is in writing and it is, “the law of the land”
2. If there were no Liberty, this country or no people anywhere, could realize their full potential.

Both ‘The Declaration and ‘The Constitution are, connected to each other. There could be not the latter without the former. There would have been no revolution fought or won without recognizing “equal rights.” Without these rights fought for, there could be no Liberty. So, ‘The Declaration’ was written to declare these rights and ‘The Constitution’ was written to preserve, protect and defend these rights. Equality and inequality must be balanced by liberty!

EqualLibertyUnequal2

Where there is liberty, equality and inequality will be in balance

All men, women and children though created equal are by nature and/or opportunity unequal. WE do not all have the same or identical abilities, opportunities, experience or the will to exercise them. So this is, inequality. But WE all do, have the same potential (equal rights). Again, without rights, there can be no liberty. To exercise liberty will both increase equality and its consequence of, inequality. For this purpose was our government constructed to limit its power over the rights of WE the People. Three branches— the executive, the legislative and the judicial  were intentionally designed to have separate (unequal), but equal limited power. There is inequality in this separation of powers.

When the focus is upon what makes US unequal instead of what makes us equal, liberty wanes and inequality waxes.. So, our focus should be on what makes us all equal. It is because of this equality that WE have liberty. The consequence of liberty will always be inequality until IF or WHEN, WE all become perfect.

Homosexual rights, Transgender rights, Women’s rights, children’s rights, Animal rights, White privileges, Black rights, Hispanic rights, Religious rights and who knows the complete list of rights there could be to promote, are these one and all not focusing on the inequality? Would they even be possible to address in any other country which does NOT have equal rights and the liberty to exercise them? But focusing on the inequality increases the inequality, is divisive and serves only those that seek to profit from it by diminishing the rights and the liberty of all.

EqualLibertyUnequal3

When the focus is on inequality, the scales become out of balance

When the focus is on the individual, the scales become out of balance

When the focus is on the individual, the scales become out of balance

WE the People by Our written and published ideals, are no more perfect than any other person in the world. But our written and published form of government is the goal, “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” As it is, this perfectly imperfect form of government, devised to protect, preserve and defend the rights of all and to give liberty to all with the potential to elevate our inequality to a “more perfect” equality, has no equal in the history of the world! WE are NOT perfect, but there is no better form of government among the hearts of all, throughout the entire world, past or present. Only our Creator, can provide us with future perfection! Until IF and When such a time may exist—

Equality=Liberty=Inequality.

The mathematical axiom is, ‘Things equal to the same things are equal to each other.

Let me close this out by asking you to consider the following questions.

1. If you did not live in a country that in writing, declares that all have equal rights given to them by God, how much liberty do you think you or anyone might realize, experience; enjoy?
2. If you lived where there are no rights and no liberty to all, what would be the quality of your life?
3. If you feel unequal to anyone in this country, what do you suppose the quality of life would be like here, if you did not have equal rights and the liberty (any at all) to exercise those rights?
4. Even if you are poor here or were a slave in the past, what do you suppose the quality of life (or lack thereof) would be like, any other place that does not have written and published equal rights that among them is, liberty?

The Secret of WE, WE the PEople is the balance of Liberty in the middle of equality and inequality!

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

Advertisements

From the Pen of the Revolution

June 8, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-wy

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

 

PenofRevolutio2John Dickinson, often referred to as the “penman of the Revolution,” was an American statesman, and a delegate to the Continental Congress. During the Second Continental Congress, there was high tension among the delegates and intense debate over revolution, but Dickinson refused to vote for or sign the Declaration of Independence, saying the emerging nation was not ready for open revolt against the most powerful empire on earth. In the end, he abstained from voting so that the overall tally for independence would be unanimous. He supported the revolution in many other ways and even in battle. He was one of the writers of the Articles of Confederation. Dickinson also helped draft the U.S. Constitution. He was born in 1732 and won fame in 1767, as the author of, ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ his Pennsylvania Chronicle, a series of 12 essays.

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

“If Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any, of HER rights, it may deprive all the other colonies of THEIR rights. And nothing can possibly encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.”

John Dickinson

Indeed, United WE stand, but divided WE fall!

PenofRevolution3

Insert on cover of: ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

Think of John Dickinson, the next time you read or think about the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment X

1 of WE,

Dahni

Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

February 26, 2015
Shortlink for this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-mf
by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved
Apple_pic

Apple of Gold in a picture of silver – click for full size

What is the meaning of this picture? What do the words mean?

In the front, we see an apple of gold with a green leaf. This is indicative of a gold (precious and beautiful, and very valuable) apple. The green leaf means it is a ‘living’ and growing object. There are words within this apple. They are the words from, The Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The apple of gold appears to be three-dimensional and is emphasized by the shadow it casts onto the frame of silver beneath. The apple of gold takes up most of the space of the interior frame, but it also appears to suspend over the space. For it alone is, free and independent. The picture of silver is only a servant and protector.

Beneath this apple of gold there are other words. These are from The Constitution of the United States of America, in 1789. To the left of the apple of gold, the word “WE” is emphasized. It is from the Preamble to The Constitution and the single word “WE” is, suggestive enough that the first three words of The Constitution, “WE the People,’ are filled in by our minds and understood.

The entire image is framed by a frame or a ‘picture of silver.’ Framing enhances; is used to draw attention to and emphasizes the object or the subject that is framed.

From The Declaration of Independence, WE have in our founding writing, a preamble if you will that in part states, its purpose for the writing.

 

“…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

excerpt from the first paragraph: The Declaration of Independence

 

In the second paragraph of the same document, the foundation and source of this entitlement is, set forth.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

excerpt from the second paragraph: The Declaration of Independence

 

The Declaration of Independence is, a legal document which states the just causes of separation from England. It clearly states its logical premise and its logical conclusion. This premise and this conclusion are based on and centers on the truth that all (men, women and children) are, “created equal!” Each are endowed with certain unalienable rights (rights which can NOT be taken, surrendered, forfeited, sold, bartered or given away. Among these certain rights are: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness!”  This is or WE each are together, the ‘Apple of Gold.’

In 1776, 1789 and even in the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, common language used of those days (sometimes still today) were, “we the king.” This has been used of the present Queen Elizabeth of England as, “We the Queen of England.” The plural pronoun was used, for a single entity, to empathize the power of the station. The king would include, every man, woman and child of the kingdom. In our Constitution, the picture of silver, the words are, “We the people.” This phrase too, emphasizes the power of the station and would include, every man, woman and child.

The “all men” of The Declaration of Independence is, an all-inclusive noun and would include, every man, woman and child. Each and all are, apples of gold, framed by pictures of silver.

The people of a kingdom are bound by compulsion and often, by a sworn oath to obey. We the people are bound together by the creation of our equality and each apple of gold is endowed with, certain unalienable rights. Whereas the people of a kingdom have in common, the royal that binds them, we are bound not by sworn oath, but liberty to choose for ourselves and together, by our unalienable rights. What WE the People, the apple of gold have in common is, not our multiple colors or beliefs or anything other than, such unalienable rights as, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! This connection is reflected in the phrase that appears on the Seal of the United States and is stamped on our currency, every dollar and every cent. The words are Latin and are, E pluribus unum, “Out of many, one” or alternatively translated as, “One out of many.” or “One from many!”

It is our unity of purpose, our equality of creation that connects us as family. The same bloodline of liberty flows in each of us. Each of us carry the identical DNA code of, unalienable rights. Each of us are, an apple of gold and together, the Apple of Gold!

But before these universal truths became the law of our land; an accomplished reality and having exhausted every civil and logical means to address their grievances to the king and his agents to no avail, our fore-family resisted by first, civil disobedience, as in the ‘Boston Tea Party.’ After every civil, courteous, and logical means were spent and all having fallen on the figurative deaf ears of the king, our fore-family, the apples of gold then, they legally declared their just causes against the rule of any man, royal or tyrant.

Our fore-family, their commitment and resolve, far exceeded their own efforts to realize for themselves; to hold and to be the accomplished reality of, the apple of gold. Their hope was, that their efforts if never realized for themselves, would one day be a realized and accomplished and a living reality, in their progeny. WE the people are, their progeny! WE the People are, their children! WE the People are, their family! WE the people are, the apple of gold in a picture of silver!

If you look upon the present day with horror and at the terror within our present world that this present is, somehow unique to our day and time, WE the People, need to read or re-read; research the history of our own fore-family. They endured equal if not greater acts of barbarism and acts of less than, animalistic cruelty. They endured rape and pillage and plunder. They endured chemical warfare. They endured drowning, burning by fire, slit throats and scalping and even the visage of some that were beheaded, whose heads were placed on spikes as, trophies of defeat and warnings to fear, the conquerors! It was their hope by which they fought and endured. It was their hope which drove them forward to, hope against all hope. It was their love of liberty and this seemingly impossible thought of defeating, the greatest military and power of the time. It was their hope which drove them forward beyond starvation, lack of resources, sickness, disease, capture and imprisonment and even probable death! It was this slimmest of hope by which they endured, death and destruction by their own mother country (England) and even at the hands of or opposition from, their own friends and families. That hope was, for the living truth of, WE the People, the apple of gold!

The Declaration of Independence was in essence, an affidavit. It was signed unanimously. In a sense, John Hancock, whose signature was visibly larger than the others (as if on purpose) was, like the notary public, since most probably, he was the most recognized signer.  This affidavit, with its “whereas(s)” and concluding “therefore” was, a legal document in that it showed their just cause to the king and to the entire world that the king himself, had broken laws (the Magna Carta) that he had no legal right to do. It showed to the king and to the world, their right to be recognized, to represent themselves in all matters as a sovereign state, to conduct commerce and trade with the world as, free and independent states.

The Declaration was written and delivered to the King. It still fell on deaf ears and was wholly rejected. The Declaration of Independence was again, signed unanimously and each and every signer, pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, for the vision of independence and the right to self-direct and self-govern.

In the preamble to The Constitution, its first words read, “We the People…” The word “We,” refers back to The Declaration of Independence and again these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and all women and all children) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The “WE” of The Constitution are, the same “WE” of, The Declaration of Independence!

When independence was won, We the People knew then that government is or can be corrupted and is, an evil thing, but that it was a, ‘necessary evil.’ So to protect the rights of individuals, the individual “states” (then 13) unanimously agreed to form a government and this legal document was called formally the, ‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,’ in 1781.

The words, “perpetual union” were stricken from The Constitution and replaced with the words, “…in order to form a more perfect union.” This is a figure of speech because, there can be nothing “more perfect,” than something that is already perfect. The idea of the union of individual states, full of individuals, in a sense or as a concept was perfect, but a “more perfect union” was, just the idea that the union by growth and change could aspire to; become better as, the individual states; individuals, grew and changed. But the Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual was, terminated when, The Constitution was ratified and signed and became the “Law of the Land,” in 1789. With the coming of the greater, the lesser terminated. But The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold is, still connected to this new form of government,  The Constitution, the picture or frame of silver.

Each individual state agreed to and would pattern their own government as a republic just like, The Constitution.

The government and governments of individual states were designed to protect the individual rights (the apples of gold) and limit the government; all state governments from taking and exercising power over the people that they were, NOT, to ever have. This Constitution of limiting government execution, legislation and judicial decisions is, the picture or frame of silver.

The words, “apples of gold in pictures of silver,” come from the Bible.

 

“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”

The Bible, Proverbs 25:11, KJV (king James Version)

 

“A word fitly spoken by you now would be like ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver.'” Alexander H. Stephens, a former Georgia congressman, wrote these words to Abraham Lincoln on December 30, 1860. He quoted from Proverbs 25:11 to persuade Lincoln that a public statement from the president-elect would help greatly in the mounting crisis of the divided country. A student of the Bible in his own right, Lincoln reflected on Stephens’s biblical reference and, in a note to himself, used the “apples of gold” reference to clarify the connection between America’s constitutional union and the principle of “Liberty to all.”

“When (Abraham) Lincoln was elected the first Republican president of the United States on November 6, 1860, he received no votes from nine southern states; what Lincoln called in 1858 the “crisis” of the American “house divided” had come to a head. On December 22, 1860, the president-elect wrote Stephens, a former Whig ally in Congress, to assuage his fears about the incoming administration:…”

“Stephens, who in February 1861 would be elected Vice President of the Confederate States of America, replied with his December 30 letter, which led Lincoln to jot down what is known as his “Fragment on the Constitution and Union.”

Excerpts from the, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” from the: “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln”, Roy P. Basler ed., 1953).

 

Fragment on the Constitution and Union 

“All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.” 

“The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.” 

“The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.” 

“So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”

Abraham Lincoln

January 1861

Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, volume 4 (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1953), 168-169.

 

Returning once more to The Declaration, we read again the following:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–“

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

This is, the purpose and reason for, The Declaration of Independence. And this is us, you and I, WE the People that collectively are, this apple of gold, but individually, each of us are an apple of gold, protected by and each with, a picture or frame of silver. This would be what the verse in Proverbs states, “…apples (plural) of gold in pictures (plural) of silver.

To secure the rights of each individual, WE the People (the true power or source of government or the real government) instituted a limited government in The Constitution. This government, this Constitution is, the picture of silver.

As a point of interest, on the Periodic table of the elements, gold is heavier than silver. In dollars and cents, gold costs more than, is more valuable than, silver. You, an apple of gold, carry more weight (greater importance) and are more valuable than, the picture or frame of silver that adorns you!

As a point of comparison, read he following verse from he Bible.

 

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

Psalm 12:3, King James Version (KJV)

It is my understanding that silver cannot be any more pure than, by being purified seven times. Silver has long been known, for its purifying properties in medicine and science. Numerically, seven (7) in the Bible is, the number of, spiritual perfection. The “Lord” is, the author of those words and His words were pure words as, silver, purified seven times. The words of The Constitution, the picture of silver in comparison are, the pure words of us, you and I, We the people, from The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold.

In another Psalm of the Bible, the psalmist says –

“Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,”

Psalm 17:8, (KJV)

The apple of the eyes is, the central aperture of the eye.

 

“The phrase apple of my eye refers to something or someone that one cherishes above all others.“

Oxford English Dictionary: Apple (section 6 B) “the particular object of a person’s affection or regard; a greatly cherished person or occas. [sometimes] thing.”

 

This is exactly what We the people of The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, ordained and instituted our government, The Constitution, the picture of silver to do, to ever keep us each an apple of gold, in the apple of its eye!

Wings indicate the ability to fly and soar, to preserve and protect us, the apples of gold, to carry us and hide us (protect us) under the shadow of its wings. And this is precisely what We the people, the true and only government, the foundation and purpose of The Declaration of Independence, by which, we ordained and instituted our servant, The Constitution, the picture of silver to do. And this is, to preserve and protect our rights, our liberty and our freedoms!

 

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

This institution of, by and for the people is, the purpose and reason, for The Constitution, the picture of silver. And WE the People are, the apple of gold. We, the apple of gold, should ever be, the apple of the eye of The Constitution, the servant-serving government, the picture of silver!

 

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Preamble to: The United States Constitution, 1789

 

WE the People, ordained and established this Constitution, this picture of silver and WE the People, can alter it or abolish it and institute and ordain new government IF, and WHENEVER, WE so choose!

 

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Some believe that our form of government is wholly unacceptable, for our day and time. They would argue that it was perhaps the best in its day, but its day has long gone. They would say that our form of government is unable to handle the needs of over 300 million people who live here today, without expanding the frame or picture of silver. Some also, argue that our original system of government was, only for men, white men and men that owned property. Many today argue that our original form of government excluded women and children and all other races, religions and ethnic backgrounds, but especially all others of any other socio-economic status, except for those of wealth. They would point towards the miss-treatment of slaves and the native Americans of  this country as well as, others. Under the premise that they are addressing the needs of all, they are actually on behalf of a select few, in practice, trying to rob all of us, of our unalienable rights. Even with good intentions, they have grown the picture or frame of silver, at the expense of the apple of gold. Many of these people are graduates of our finest Universities and Colleges in this country and may themselves purport to be of superior intellect. Many of them hold doctorate degrees. Many are lawyers and judges. Surely all these people know what is best, for the rest of us? In case you missed what I just wrote, let me say here now so there is no misunderstanding – it was with sarcasm!

The whole aim of education is to act. To be able to act, there must be understanding or blind following. The purpose of education is NOT to make blind followers, but to lead out of darkness and into the light; into something better. In order to do this, everyone must understand – every child and even a fool. Education that cannot be presented clearly and simply in order that ALL CAN UNDERSTAND is, not education or what the meaning of being educated is!

But all of them, all of these elite people, the smart-people in charge, work in and around government. Their fortunes and careers, center in or around government. And they tell us that they are aware of many problems and daily put forth their best efforts, we are told, to solve them. This government, this picture of silver has grown of such size that it is, the largest employer in our entire country. But government is, not a for-profit business. It makes nor produces anything. It is merely a service, empowered by, WE the People, the apple of gold.

There is another group of people who also realize that there are many problems today, in our union, our government, the picture of silver that is supposed to be made, for the apple of gold. They call for a re-resurgent call of say, 1970. In a speech by Howard Zinn, he titled his work then, ‘The Problem is Civil Obedience,’ 1970, from the Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press.

IF the problem is, civil obedience then by sheer logic, the solution would be, civil disobedience. In fact, this is precisely what Zinn proposes in his speech. He even references The Declaration of Independence, as an example of civil disobedience. But this is an error! The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold was, and still is, a legal document, not a threat or an act of civil disobedience! They were not disobeying the king. The king had disobeyed the laws that he was not supposed to do. His was an act of, uncivilized disobedience! His was an act of war!

Recently, in the 21st century, just two short years ago, the American actor, Matt Damon, seemed to channel Howard Zinn. Matt Damon read excerpts from a speech Howard Zinn gave in 1970, as part of a debate on civil disobedience. Matt Damon and his family were lifelong friends of the Zinns. If you so choose, the you tube video can be heard and viewed in its entirety at: (http://youtu.be/S2li9E_94MA). This performance was part of “The People Speak, Live!” show, featuring Damon, Lupe Fiasco and a cast of Chicago’s finest poets, actors, activists, artists, musicians, and writers. The show took place at the Metro in Chicago, on January 31, 2012, and was produced by Voices of a People’s History (peopleshistory.us) in collaboration with Louder Than a Bomb: The Chicago Youth Poetry Festival (youngchicagoauthors.org).

Others may like to believe and suggest that Martin Luther King and the march on Washington was, an example of civil disobedience. But it was merely a constitutional –

 

“…right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”-

– Bill of Rights, part of the first amendment

 

That March on Washington was NOT a protest, for the government to pass more laws, but for the government to protect the rights of all, that all, already were endowed with! Those rights were written in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and amended in The Constitution, over hundred years before, this march ever took place. They merely marched that the government, their government would enforce the laws they were sworn to uphold, for every citizen, every apple of gold in the picture of silver!

CNN added to its website, a video at 10:23 AM ET, on Thursday, February 12, 2015. On this video, Chris Cuomo, interviews Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore and he (Cuomo) states clearly that our rights do not come from God, “they come from man.” If you so choose, you may hear and view it for yourself, on You Tube at: http://youtu.be/Er5aU9c1Dbc

Despite his intellect and education, this is an ignorant opinion, with absolutely no basis for fact or truth. We the people, the apple of gold were created equal and endowed with, certain unalienable rights, not by man (humanity), but by, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God!” It was from man’s law, the laws and broken laws of the king (a man) that We the People, sought separation and independence from and ordained and instituted government to preserve and protect and to remain at liberty, separate and independent of the laws of Man (humanity) and man’s (humanity’s) laws! For rights that come from man (humanity), can be taken away from man (human kind), by man (human kind). But our unalienable rights come from, “the Laws of Nature and Natures God!”

 

“…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

excerpt from The Declaration of Independence

 

Note: Christopher Charles “Chris” Cuomo is a television journalist, currently at CNN. He previously was the ABC News chief law and justice correspondent, and co-anchor for ABC’s 20/20. He is the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the brother of current New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo.

Arguments for the egregious usurping of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” are put forward and pressed because, times have changed and definitions have changed. In fact,  unnecessary, almost un-numbered (seemingly without number) and unholy laws (laws unconstitutional or extra-constitutional) and interpretations have, diminished the apple of gold and greatly increased, the picture of silver!

Almost everyone would agree that there are many problems within our government, our picture of silver that is supposed to enhance and protect us, the apple of gold. But each problem seems to have its own nearly innumerable symptoms and there is some temporary band-aid for the nearly, infinite number of symptoms. But the real problem is not that our system of government, the frame or picture of silver is not enough to frame and protect the apple of gold. For centuries now, ever since 1776, government has grown under the idea that is must grow, in order to protect the many more apples of gold of today. To civilly disobey is, not the solution, unless the government de jure (pure law) was never sufficient, even when first written. But that was and are NOT the facts, the case or the truth. The best way I know how to explain the real problem is, by a picture.

 

Apple2_pic

Almost hidden apple of gold in a Picture of Silver – click for full size

In the picture above, the apple of gold and The Declaration of Independence have nearly all, but disappeared. The Constitution (the original picture of silver) has been, overtaken by many, many other laws, rules and regulations, and interpretations by, the judicial system.

The original Constitution has been, overridden by the books you see within the frame. These are individual volumes which make up the many sections of the U.S. Code. All total, these and other laws and rules and regulations have come to, supersede the original Constitution. The apple of gold has not shrunk, the picture of silver has inordinately become, OVERGROWN! It is more like a mutation or a virus. This may be considered as, government de facto. Another legal term, for this monstrosity of a frame or picture of silver, which now dwarfs the almost invisible apple of gold is called, legal fiction. It is legal because, it proceeds from The Constitution (government de jure), but it is fiction (government de facto) because, it does not really exist. It is merely implied and accepted as, this is, just the way it is (government de facto). But this is NOT the way it is! Why and how can I say this? Because, our system of government, our Constitution, our picture of silver may have been altered, but never abolished nor have We the People, the apple of gold, the source and power of government, ever ordained, established or instituted new Government!

Have you ever heard or read, “the forest cannot be seen, for (because of) the trees?” Today, the apple of gold is almost NOT seen, for the largess of, the picture of silver.

Oh, the apple of gold still exists in theory and once in a while in practice, while the picture of silver continues to grow and expand, for itself, thriving at the expense of us, We the People, the apple of gold, in a picture of silver, pure silver. The bulging present frame is neither silver nor pure!

The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, the foundation and purpose of our government, has no legal standing in any court of law! The Preamble to The Constitution, the foundation and purpose of our government, the original picture of silver, has no legal standing in any court of law! This is how The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, has been interpreted by the law, not of the land, but by man. And this is legal fiction!  But in truth, ANY court of law that does not preserve and protect the apple of gold and the picture of silver, has no legal standing, in either The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution of the United States of America!

The real and true problem lies NOT, in The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, or the original Constitution, the frame or picture of silver. The problem is clearly and simply, the fault of usurpers and interpreters that have intentionally or not, in contrast to Abraham Lincoln’s work in ‘Fragment on the Constitution and Union,’ the apple of gold has diminished and has been made, for the largeness of, the Picture of Silver!

But both The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, provide us with the ONLY remedy. We the People, the apple of gold, need to RESET_but the picture of silver!

To do this, we must know HOW. But before that, we must know WHY. To do that, We must know WHEN, the exact place and time when, the picture of silver, took over the apple of gold. For the future, we must know and understand our present. To know and understand our present, we must know and understand our past that has gotten us to this day and time. And for this, we must start in 1861. That was the exact year when the picture of silver grew and has not ceased from unnaturally growing, ever since!

What is the reflection in the apple of your eye? Is it the largeness of the picture of silver or an apple of gold?

Apple_cover

What is reflected in the apple of your eye? – click for full size

 

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

 

 

 

Note: This post will most likely be the introduction to the sequel, for, ‘RESET “An UN-alien’s guide to Resetting our Republic.”’ The title of this future book, already in process and all art work here is, for: “An Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver” – In progress.

D.

Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective

April 2, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/2/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective

Last time WE looked at ignorance and its part in shaping the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” within and around OUR republic.  In the midst of so learned and freedom seeking society in the 1600’s and 1700’s in what is now the U.S.A., ignorance still prevailed in matters of slavery. Generation after generation passed this ignorance forward often without detection, but certainly without correction. Over time, this ignorance – justified and rationalized, became a ‘mindset.’ WE need to understand how this “mindset,” this ignorance; this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” caused the Civil War. Today WE will look at the Northern Perspective. WE will look at 1 man – Abraham Lincoln, his first inaugural address and the U.S. Constitution for the justification or rationalization of this ignorance from the Northern Perspective.

Even before Lincoln was sworn in as president of the United States, several states had already seceded. After Lincoln’s first inaugural address, other states quickly followed. Representatives and Senators had already made their intentions known in Congress. Congress had already passed a motion to remove their names from the roll call, but not to expel them. Lincoln knew this.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln begins with the issue of slavery.

4

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
4th paragraphMarch 4, 1861

First of all, Lincoln in his opening remarks, made slavery an issue, because in his mind, the constitutions of the previously seceded states and those considering secession, already made slavery an issue. Remember the bold red and underlined words above, as WE will later see an apparent contradiction to each of them.

Lincoln’s address then proceeds to states rights.

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

The words “domestic,” “perfection” and “lawless” are interesting. Domestic rights would by the omission here, exclude the state’s foreign rights to be exercised between other states, which would be foreign in the same sense that the state would have no rights to deal with a foreign country. The word “perfection” refers to OUR system of government and it would later in his address, imply that it is perfect. The word “lawless” would only mean that invasion by armed forces of any state or territory could only occur if there was such a law allowing it.

8

“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 8

9

[“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”]

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 9

(Lincoln quoting from the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, 3rd paragraph)

His answer or solution to resolving this issue is in:

10

“Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 10

But then he argues that oaths should still be kept despite any difference of opinion as to how they should be kept.

11

“And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 11

13

I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 13

Lincoln’s suggestion implies that those states which had seceded or that were considering secession were violating the law “to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Lincoln continues and addresses the idea or concept of secession.

15

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 15

The words “I hold” are in direct contrast to the first three words of the Constitution which are, “WE the People.” Perpetuity though Lincoln believed it may be implied is not written in the Constitution to which his words “if not expressed” indicate his belief that perpetuity is implied. However, the absence of “perpetuity” in the Constitution relates to its jurisdiction (the creators not that which is created) which is, “WE the People.” The argument that no government including OURS has never provided a means for its own termination, may be true for other governments, but not OURS! OUR government may be changed by amendments by congress or the people and it may be terminated by the very source from which it began, by the same three first words of the Constitution, “WE the People.”

Lincoln continues to argue the perpetuity of OUR union.

16

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak-but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 16

This is the address of the president and Chief Executive. Lincoln was a lawyer and he here presents a legal argument as if addressing the court, the judges being the people. His arguments are interpretative of the law. This is the first indication that the executive branch of government would take control of both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government, which Lincoln would later do.  Not only does the Constitution not mention contracts and associations, neither does it mention perpetuity which Lincoln in his address has already indicated it was not mentioned.  He mentions that contracts cannot be peaceably terminated, but there is no mention that they could not be forcibly terminated by one or all parties in concern. The Constitution was not ratified by all the states, at the same time, but by a majority of the states and at specific times. His premise that all states would be necessary to break a contract or comparing contracts to a “government proper,” is based on the premise that OUR union is perpetual. He then uses history to substantiate his premise in support of his conclusion.

17

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 17

Although over a hundred years of associating with one another, confederating or constituting with one another, may seem like the union is perpetual, but this is not a logical argument, because the premise is wrong and therefore so likewise, is the conclusion. The only accurate reference in writing or in the above history to which Lincoln referred to in citing the word “perpetual,” was the Articles of Confederation. The literal title of this document is: The Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual. The word “perpetual” does not appear in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was a wholly new government which ended the previous one in replacing the Articles of Confederation. John Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson referred to all those in attendance as “demigods.”

To be honest however, Jefferson later came to respect many of the changes made and the Constitution itself. But he and other founders of OUR republic wrote of the states rights to secede. Some states had even considered secession long before the birth of Lincoln. Newspapers all across the country in 1860 including New York wrote editorials in support of the states rights to secede. Of these historical facts, Lincoln does not mention in his first inaugural address when using history, endeavoring to argue that the union was perpetual.

Lincoln relates in his argument that the Union is perpetual with the words from the Constitution, “to form a more perfect Union.” WE need to understand these words and to be perfectly clear about them. They are not literal!!! They are a figure of speech. If they were literal, it would be completely illogical. If something is perfect, it cannot become more perfect or less perfect. As a figure of speech, the emphasis is on perfection as a goal to strive for. The Constitution was considered to be a better union than the previous Confederation. But the fact that Lincoln views these words in a more literal sense and to further make his argument on the perpetuity of the Union is seen, in his next paragraph of his first inaugural address.

18

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 18

Lincoln himself uses a figure of speech to further his argument with the words, “less perfect.” His reasoning that the Union would be “less perfect” if it lost the “element of perpetuity is illogical.” It is illogical because his premise is incorrect. Less perfect in the literal sense is illogical. The figure of speech here emphasizes “perfect” as a goal, but to the infallible human being, perfection is not possible, nor is to make something more perfect or less perfect.

Having stated his false premises, Lincoln then makes his conclusion, which would also, be false.

19

“It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 19

The words, “the authority of the United States,” clearly state Lincoln’s perspective and that of many of the north. This is indicative of the idea that the thing created (the Constitution) is superior to the creators, WE the People.

Lincoln according to his conclusion states that “acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.” According to the dictionary, an “insurrection” and a “revolution,” are defined as follows.

Insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

Definitions based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Lincoln further cements his conclusion with the following paragraph.

20

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 20

If the Union was “unbroken” according to Lincoln’s argument, there was no reason to state that “the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States,” unless the southern states by an “act of violence as either an insurrection or a revolution under the authority of the United States required it. This requirement would necessitate force, which contradicts what he already said and what WE have already read from the 5th paragraph of his first inaugural address. Here it is again:

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

So this action would necessitate the South in essence, to fire first which would be responded to by the use of force. However, to execute the law in “all the States,” since the southern states were not abiding by this Union, either coercion or force would be necessary according to Lincoln’s argument. Coercion is defined as follows:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Definition based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010

Coercion could include other means, methods and manners to enforce the law besides force, whereas the word force is clear.

Coercion or force is implied by Lincoln in his next paragraph.

21

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 21

How would it be possible to enforce the law in holding, occupying and possessing the property belong to Government unless by coercion or force if this property was questioned as to its ownership? How would it be possible to enforce the law in collecting duties and imposts unless by coercion or force if they were questioned as to its legitimacy? The southern states believed it was their property and as a foreign nation, they were not subject to the duties and imposts of the United States. Therefore, the only action the Union could take against the Confederacy would have to be by coercion or force, whether the South would invade or not.

Lincoln has gone further than as if to argue a case before a court. His conclusions and subsequent actions are indicative of judgment being made by a court. His interpretation of the Constitution is indicative of “legislating from the bench.” In his first inaugural address, Lincoln has become the Chief Executive, and has dominated both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches of the Government. This will be substantiated as WE continue here.

23

“That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 23

If he neither affirms nor denies that there are those that “seek to destroy the Union,”

Why bring this up and why use the word “destroy.” Was there only two types of people at this time, those that “seek to destroy the Union,” and those “who really love the Union?”

The opposite of this would be if you do not love the union then therefore you seek to destroy it. The words used here are inflammatory.

24

“Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 24

Lincoln suggests here that perhaps there is no real reason for their secession and the possibility of greater consequences in leaving the Union. Is this statement to discredit the South and a veiled threat? This is the second use of the root word or “destroy.” He also suggests that perhaps there exists no “real” reason for the South to secede and the consequences would be greater in so doing than for having left it for no reason.

25

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.”

What is a vital right as opposed to a non-vital right? It is obvious that the south was not content to remain in the Union. If his argument is correct that there is no Constitutional reason for the South to secede, it must rest with slavery on the part of the South, according to Lincoln’s viewpoint.

25

“But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length, contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 25

This obviously shows that the Constitution is not perfect, was never intended to be perfect and the Union of the states are not nor ever were considered to be either perfect or perpetual. Again, Lincoln argues that no Constitutional right has been violated and so therefore the only disagreement between the Union and the Confederacy would be slavery? This is spelled out plainly in the next paragraph.

26

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

Now his argument centers on two choices, to “acquiesce” or not and the latter would cause the government to cease. If neither the majority nor the minority are willing to cooperate, then another choice would be to separate? And if separate, government could still continue for both.

26

“There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

The words “the Government” relates to the 19th paragraph of this address with the words, “the authority of the United States.” Again the thing created appears to be greater than those that created it (WE the People), it is perpetual and only all the states could disband it.

27

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 27

28

“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 28

First of all, what is the definition of “anarchy” and what was its origin?

Anarchy – a state of society without government or law.

Origin:
1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an-1 +arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y3

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

From where does Lincoln derive his interpretation that secession is anarchy? What would the Revolutionary War have been, anarchy? And just because changes to the Constitution are made from popular opinion or sentiment, does this mean any have lost their unalienable rights or opposing those changes would be considered anarchists flying to anarchy or despotism? According to Lincoln’s viewpoint and those of the North that agreed with him, it would be anarchy or despotism. But what then was the Revolutionary War? What then are unalienable rights?

According to Lincoln, it is only the Constitution which is, “the only true sovereign of a free people.” The Constitution is a created thing, created of, for and by the people, and it is OUR unalienable rights which are the true sovereignty of a free people! And what are the sovereign nations of the Native American Indians and in many respects, the nature of exemptions of the Amish people?

Lincoln states that, “Unanimity is impossible.” Was not the Declaration of Independence a unanimous decision? Was not the Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual, a unanimous decision? Do not all members “All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution,” (from Lincoln’s 10th paragraph) and is this not unanimous? Seventy two years later in 1933 and even though only ¾ of the states were required to amend the constitution (36 of 48 states at the time), 39 states ratified the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. This included all the former Confederate States except for Florida. However nine additional states including Florida subsequently ratified this amendment.  Since Hawaii and Alaska were not then states in 1933, 48 states were unanimous in ratifying this amendment. Total agreement or unanimity may not always be probable or possible, but it is not impossible!

29

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 29

The words in bold red italics are the true purpose of secession, that the people are the rulers (creators) and not the government (the created thing).

30

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 30

Again, slavery is made an issue here and that according to Lincoln, “the only substantial dispute.” In as he has thus argued, the Union is perfect, to withdraw from it would make it “less perfect,” and “the only substantial dispute,” (slavery) “can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.”

31

“Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 31

Why would is not be possible to physically separate? Why would it not be possible to build a wall of separation between the North and the South, impractical, but why not possible? China built a wall thousands of years ago. Kingdoms built walls for protection to keep enemies out. The analogy of a divorced couple is inappropriate. It is possible to divorce and due to custody and other issues, the former husband and wife could remain in the same location and even the same house with or without ever speaking to each other. So the states could do the same thing.

“Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.” Who is the word “you” repeatedly used here referring to? Is it not the Confederate States? And are WE not in essence face to face with Canada and yet separate nations, but for the most part WE each maintain an amicable relationship? The words here are accusatory – you go to war, you can’t fight forever, you cease fighting and then, “the same old identical questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

32

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

These two sentences are accurate, but WE have already seen from Lincoln’s address that “the people” refer to all the people of the United States. His argument is that the Union is perpetual, the Constitution was written as “a more perfect union,” and to disband it would make it “less perfect.” Along with perpetuity and perfection he equates the “revolutionary right” in overthrowing the government can only be done by all the people of all the states since all got into the Union when OUR country first began. This would therefore be a unanimous decision and Lincoln has already stated that “unanimity is not possible.” This all appears to be contradictory. He finishes out this paragraph in basically referring to Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution about amendments.

32

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

The amendment referred to here was called The Corwin Amendment and was passed by Congress on March 2, 1861 and just two days before his inaugural address. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery). The Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit the Congress from banning slavery in those states whose laws permitted it. This amendment has never been ratified by the states, although it was submitted to the states without any time restraints. Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, ended any realistic chance of it ever being adopted. It reads as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Non-ratified Corwin Amendment

Why did Lincoln bring up this amendment other than to strengthen his point that it was only slavery which was the sole point of division between the North and the South? See paragraph 30 previously and note the words:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 30

33

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 33

Magistrate – mag·is·trate    (māj’ĭ-strāt’, -strĭt)  noun

a. A civil officer with power to administer and enforce law, as:

b. A local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases.

[Middle English magistrat, from Old French, from Latin magistrātus, from magister, magistr-, master; see meg- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

It is interesting that Lincoln chose the word “magistrate” here, having its root in the word “master.” As president of the United States he was the Chief Executive and he states that authority “comes from the people.” He also stated that there was no authority to “fix the terms for the separation of the states,” and the duty is to administer the government as received and pass it on to the next executive, “unimpaired.”  Then why has he presented in his first inaugural address arguments as if before a court? Why has he interpreted the Constitution? In so doing, he is as if legislating from the bench and by his conclusions, he makes rulings as if a judge. In essence, which will become clear in a future presentation here – ‘Divide and Conquer,’ Lincoln would later dominate both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government in prosecution of the American Civil War, or technically, the suppression of a rebellion.

35

“By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Paragraph 35

Even though the Constitution with its set of checks and balances had endured to this point, if it were perfect and all the people were content, then secession would never have been considered throughout the history of the United States nor first attempted by the Confederate States of America. Lincoln stated that no administration “by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

For now, this is where we will leave off.  But WE will look at the consequences of those four years another time under the title of: ‘The Basis and Consequences of Ignorance.’

37

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

Paragraph 37

Although the Confederacy technically fired fist on Fort Sumter, which officially started the Civil War, there is more than sufficient evidence to support that Lincoln manipulated the response in favor of Union justification to put down a rebellion.

38

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Paragraph 38

Perhaps, there are no equal words to compare with these? Where is a clearer example as to heartfelt and sincere desire for peace among the states and to avert war? If a man is to be believed to say what he means and to mean what he says, perhaps there is no greater proof of the intentions and the innermost being of President Abraham Lincoln, than this last paragraph of his inaugural address. But sadly, these words of a man and for those which agreed with him were from decisions based on ignorance. False premises lead to false conclusions. These conclusions led to consequences so great, they are still felt by every person within United States of America and maybe even the entire world today!

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance  – Southern Perspective

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective Soon
Previous Post Civil War Ignorance
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

Pre-Civil War Ignorance

March 23, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/23/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Pre-Civil War Ignorance

Last time WE looked at the hypothetical possibility of what life would look like today, if the Southern states were allowed to secede from the Union in 1860-1861.  The previous post ended where this one begins and it begins with slavery. Despite the many experts and theories as to the cause or causes of the Civil War, I do not believe slavery was the issue. Does this surprise anyone? Slavery was not an issue! It was made an issue, by both the North and South!

WE will now look at some history of slavery in what is now called, the United States of America. This understanding is important as it relates to “legal fiction,” the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” and the “mindset’ WE have been endeavoring to discover and remove from OUR republic.

This “mindset” is related to the title of this post, “Pre-Civil War Ignorance.” Let us now look at “mindset” and its origins in this country, as it pertains to slavery.

Everything has an origin or a beginning. The words ‘gene,’ ‘genetics,’ ‘genealogy,’ and the first book of the Jewish and Christian Bible, ‘Genesis,’ all share the same root word. From the Greek word [genus], its definition is origin, beginning, race, kind etc.

Before actions are taken, they are preceded (originate, begin) by thoughts. Through time, a ‘mindset’ develops. This thinking and the corresponding actions get passed on from generation to generation. An evolving or otherwise civil society, when faced with something that is not understood, will often seek to justify or rationalize its position even through logical discourse. But in logic, no matter how logical the premise, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion will be wrong.

So without knowledge, WE are ignorant. Ignorance is just the state of being without knowledge or understanding.

Stupidity is to know and understand, but refusing to change.

As long as people have been a species upon this planet, slavery in some form or another has existed. Every continent, country and culture has some history of slavery in their societies. It has not always been an issue of race or the color of skin. Any person or people could have been under the subjugation, involuntarily servitude, or considered as the property of others. Some of those under whatever form or names you want to call slavery were enslaved, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and all of the above. Some were treated kindly and some cruelly. But slavery kind or cruel is, still slavery!

Imagine living in a little village thousands of years ago. It makes no difference the color of your skin or your race, but everyone in you village are all the same color or race. One day, for the very first time in your life, you meet someone that looks similar, but has a different color of skin, culture and even language. What would you think?  The world has a history of making up stuff. Instead of finding the answers to OUR differences by conversing with the person and instead of looking at OUR similarities, the differences become the focus. Maybe WE ask others instead of the person WE meet about these differences. Maybe they don’t know and no one wants to look foolish, so things often get made up, fictionalized and even vilified. What WE do not understand, WE often fear. WE often defer to others that seem to be wiser or have some connection to the ‘divine ear.’ These wise and ‘spiritual’ people are, themselves, people too. And if they don’t know, they make up stuff too. So here WE see clear examples of ignorance and how it is often passed from one generation to the next. Religion is often the source from which this ignorance begins and continues.

Slavery as it came to this country must have had some beginning. To the best of my understanding, slavery as it evolved in America, started with the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1441, Portuguese captains Antão Gonçalves and Nuno Tristão captured 12 Africans in Cabo Branco (modern Mauritania) and took them to Portugal as slaves. This no doubt continued so that around 10 years later, the Roman Catholic church was the dominate religion of the area and addressed slavery officially.

June 18, 1452, Pope Nicholas V issues ‘Dum Diversas’, a bull authorizing the Portuguese to reduce any non-Christians to the status of slaves.

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property […] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

Excerpt from: ‘Dum Diversas’ by Pope Nicholas V

Note: A papal bull is a letter or announcement from the Pope to the Catholic world. It is so named, because a lead bulla or seal was attached to the Pope’s edict by a cord, thus authenticating it was from the Pope.

January 8, 1454, Pope Nicholas V issues ‘Romanus Pontifex’, a bull granting the Portuguese a perpetual monopoly in trade with Africa. Nevertheless, Spanish traders brought slaves from Africa to Spain. By the time Christopher Columbus sailed the blue in 1492, slavery was already imbedded in his country of Spain.

Natives of various countries were enslaved by the Conquistadors (from Spanish and Portuguese languages meaning “Conqueror”); were taken as slaves from one place and put or sold as slaves in other places.

By the 1700’s, African slaves was the preferred choice for the Colonies.

Note: The reason African slaves were the “preferred choice,” was that as a people, they were found to be more adaptable to conditions and training (discipline); could work harder and longer than Native Americans, or slaves from South America, Central America and the Caribbean. This is just one fact that should shut the door to the argument that the African slave was an inferior race.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were known to have slaves. Although there is no evidence to support that they were cruel to their slaves, slavery is still slavery. Perhaps they thought it was their Christian, civic, or human duty to help those inferior? The ‘mindset’ of slavery nonetheless, prevailed in the minds and the culture of the colonies and our founding fathers.

When George Washington was 16 years old, he had copied by hand, ‘110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.’ These rules were based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. The first English translation, appeared in 1640, and is ascribed to Francis Hawkins, the twelve-year-old son of a doctor.

These many rules today may seem fussy and silly, but courtesy, manners, decency and good behavior were believed to be an absolute necessity, if one desired to be a true civic minded person; a gentleman or a gentlewoman of the 1700’s.

Thomas Jefferson was by the standards of the 1700’s, a highly educated man. He lived in or near Williamsburg, VA as a young man and was tutored and mentored by many of the finest minds of his day. Through his association with George Wythe, young Jefferson was afforded many opportunities and was introduced to the Governor and became a frequent visitor to the Governor’s mansion, in what we now call, Colonial Williamsburg.

George Wythe was the first signer from Virginia whose name appears on the Declaration of Independence. He was also a framer of the Constitution and instrumental in the design of the seal for the state of Virginia.

Jefferson wrote of George Wythe the following.

“No man ever left behind him a character more venerated than George Wythe,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “His virtue was of the purest tint; his integrity inflexible, and his justice exact; of warm patriotism, and, devoted as he was to liberty, and the natural and equal rights of man, he might truly be called the Cato* of his country.”

*Cato – Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95 BC, Rome – April 46 BC, Utica), commonly known as Cato the Younger (Cato Minor) to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (Cato the Elder), was a politician and statesman in the late Roman Republic, and a follower of the Stoic philosophy. He is remembered for his legendary stubbornness and tenacity (especially in his lengthy conflict with Gaius Julius Caesar), as well as his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity, and his famous distaste for the ubiquitous corruption of the period.

Wythe lived a long and prosperous life and was well respected. He was the first Law Professor of the College of William & Mary. He even boarded many students and treated them as his own children. He was long opposed to slavery and freed his own, which included one that chose to stay with him for the rest of Wythe’s life. One of Wythe’s heirs had gambling debts and forged checks of his uncle to pay them. To avoid detection and inherit his uncle’s estate, he is believed to have murdered George Wythe. The evidence was circumstantial and there was no conviction. The only possible witness was the black woman, the once former slave that chose to stay with him. But no black person was allowed to testify against a white person in court.

This is just one example of the consequences of ignorance, which ironically allowed a guilty person to go free, because of the ‘mindset’ of slavery.

But of books and learning and influence, there can be no doubt of the education of Thomas Jefferson. Even his work in the Declaration of Independence was inspired by the Magna Carta and clear influences from John Locke.

John Locke (1632 –1704) was widely known as the Father of Liberalism. He was an English philosopher and physician and regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of the times. In London in 1689, he published, ‘Two Treatises of Government,’ which arguably offers a justification for slavery.

Many Europeans came to America for religious freedom. But slavery was a form of persecution which, in the eyes of colonial America, had to be justified. So the black slave was viewed as being inferior, subhuman, and fated for servitude. The early Christian churches did not consider eliminating slavery until much later in the century. In 1693, Cotton Mather, a famous theologian from Boston, in his ‘Rules for the Society of the Negroes’ wrote,

“Negroes were enslaved because they had sinned against God.”

Later, Mather included a heavenly plan for the slaves in writing,

“God would prepare a mansion in Heaven.”

In the Colonial religious mind, the plight of the slave was servitude on earth and freedom was only possible in heaven.

King George on Dec. 10, 1770, issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor of Virginia,

“…upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.”

In 1772, the Virginia Assembly earnestly discussed the question, “How shall we get rid of the great evil?” Jefferson, Henry, Lee, and other leading men anxiously desired to rid the colony of it. “The interest of the country,” it was said, “manifestly requires the total expulsion of them.”

Interestingly, the 1600’s and 1700’s is commonly referred to as part of the ‘Age of Enlightenment,’ with such forward thinkers as Descartes, Isaac Newton and John Locke among others. All of these influences had significant weight in the mind of Thomas Jefferson.

Despite the rules of conduct, manners, and civility as mentioned earlier about Washington and the learned environment of the Colonial mind and the mind of Jefferson, slavery was wrestled with as “the great evil,” but left uncorrected, continued to be justified.

From a capitalistic or economic view, slavery was justified as for the good of the people, and slaves were not people but property.

Some indentured servants were freed after their terms expired. Some of these became slave owners themselves. Some slaves were freed and some of them also, became slave owners. Some servants and slaves had their issues by others challenged in court and were successfully freed legally. Some of these cases were overturned by other courts. But in practice and policy, slavery continued, deepened and expanded in the consciousness of people as a whole.

From a religious or humanistic point of view, slavery was justified as the master’s duty to treat their property kindly and to bring them to independence in heaven or their contented place on earth, under the benevolent hand of the superior master race.

Looking back to the history of this ‘mindset,’ and comparing it with OUR most treasured documents, many people see exclusion and hypocrisy. What then is the profit of such beautiful and flowery words as, The Declaration of Independence?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

From the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson

Though slavery existed in the home of the writer and perhaps even in very room where these words were penned and “men” did not include slaves, women, or children on July 2 – 4, 1776, the truth of these words cannot be negated!

How can such language be justified when in practice, it was exclusive, contradictory or hypocritical? There is no justification as WE will see this definitively in the next post. But neither is there justification for discarding truth, because it is not practiced of, for, and by ALL of US, WE the People!

These words were authored by Enlightenment and penned by a collective civil and learned, Colonial ignorant mind or ‘mindset!’ It was and is wherever it may exist today, part of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”

The concepts and practice of slavery was wrestled with during the formation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but was never settled; never corrected.

The whip or shackles are not the only means to enslave. The pen can be used to enslave. The law and the courts to enforce them can enslave. Even OUR Constitution if interpreted, has and in the present-day,  can, enslave. But it is ignorance; a “mindset;” a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which perpetuates the ignorance and enslaves the bodies, souls and spirits of people.

Though it is possible that some knew the truth during these times and practiced otherwise and therefore, were and may still today be hypocrites, slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, to occur almost 100 years hence. It was a “mindset” passed down from one generation to the next. It was part of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”  In a single word, it is simply, ignorance.

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – Civil War Ignorance
Previous Post – What if – The U.S.A. & C.S.A.
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

How to Vote for Sovereignty in Public

February 25, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 2/25/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

Here is where we are so far:

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” – WE are working on this Now!

Today: How to Vote for Sovereignty in Public

Previously WE the People have seen and have come to understand that our unalienable rights are sovereign. Therefore, OUR individual states are sovereign and OUR country is sovereign. These are the facts and they are undisputed. No government, amendment or law can change, alter or circumvent these “self evident truths!”

History has not been changed. It has been re-written and what WE the People perceive as republics (sovereign states) united voluntarily in a republic (sovereign nation), is “legal fiction,” a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system. It is this system that must be torn down and ripped out of OUR republic. The power of WE the People is exercised by the act of voting. What WE the People must vote for is OUR sovereign and unalienable rights! HOW are WE the People to do this? By voting for…

…a sovereign and component state governor, [in public]

in the next election where you are a citizen resident!

How are WE the People to vote in public and why should we?

In 1776, the signers of the Declaration of Independence as representatives of their perspective colonies all unanimously agreed to the wording of this founding document. Instead of privately voting, they each voluntarily chose as representative of their perspective colonies, to record their votes in public. Their individual signatures were their votes. Just as WE the People today must provide proofs of OUR identification and eligibility to vote, the proofs of 1776 on the document known as, The Declaration of Independence was their signatures.

The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, was also a unanimous agreement in 1778. On the part and behalf of the thirteen states united, this OUR first constitution was voted for in public and proved by the signatures (votes) of the signers.

The Constitution of the United States was done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present in 1787. This was also a public vote as proved by the following words:

“In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,…”

The names which followed were all signatures (votes) cast by the representatives of the states present.

A vote is a vow, affirming full knowledge of the person or thing being voted for; the identity proved by the person voting and their eligibility to vote.

A ballot is the means whereby the person or thing to be voted for is presented and the means whereby the vote, vow, mark, hole punched or signature, etcetera, is to be registered, recorded, secured and counted. As to the above 3 documents mentioned, they were in essence the ballot.

So OUR history as WE the People was founded upon many examples of public votes and those votes registered, recorded, secured and counted by signatures. Signature votes are the legal representations of the persons voting, affirming full knowledge of the person or thing being voted for; the identity being proved by the person voting and their eligibility to vote.

If the ballot is the person or the thing being voted for, and the vote is recorded by signature, mark, hole-punched etcetera, then the person voting, affirming their vow, they are therefore, an elector. In substance there is no difference between you and I as voters, and the electors of the electoral college. Both certify the results of an election. We the People certify the election by a majority of the votes cast and the electors of the Electoral College certify those votes in voting accordingly. If the power of both types of electors was not true, no candidate would ever become elected to any public office.

Since voting for a sovereign state governor does not and most likely never will appear on any ballot, WE the People will just have to provide our own. And this is the answer as to why WE the People should vote in public. How are WE the People to do this? WE need to use an affidavit.

An affidavit is a written declaration upon oath (vow, vote) made before an authorized official. Each person that “declares” in an affidavit is an affiant – one who swears or affirms to an affidavit. The completely, completed and signed affidavit is then notarized by a notary public. A notary public is a public officer or other person authorized to authenticate identities and contracts, acknowledge deeds, and take affidavits, protest bills of exchange, take depositions, and etcetera. Then the completed and notarized affidavit must be recorded. This record of the Affidavit as a legal document is recorded in the County Clerk and Recorder’s office. The affidavit should be recorded with the miscellaneous or election records, the same place where they record all other public Affidavits and legal papers, etc.

For clarification, the legal differences of an affidavit, a deposition and oral testimony are as follows:

An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party.

A deposition is a written declaration under oath, made upon notice to the adverse party.

Oral testimony is that delivered from the lips of the witness.

The solution to tearing down and ripping out the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system; the ‘legal fiction,’ the scaffolding surrounding OUR republic is to…

Vote for a sovereign and component state governor,

in the next election where you are a citizen resident!

HOW WE are to do this is, by publicly casting our votes – making OUR vows, marks, and signatures and declaring OUR will in an affidavit, having it notarized and recorded as a public record. The affidavit becomes OUR ballot. Our signature and eligibility verified, is OUR vote, vow, mark, signature or hole punched in the ballot (affidavit).

Remember that all of this is about the recognition of OUR sovereign and unalienable rights, the sovereignty of OUR states and therefore OUR chief executive seated, the sovereign governor of OUR perspective state. This act will by default or automatically make all national representatives and senators sovereign. Once the Congress is seated with sovereign representatives and senators, the Congress will cease from being an Executive Congress as it has been since 1861, and will once more become a Constitutional Congress. The moment this happens, the Executive and Judiciary Branches will also, become constitutional once more. The results and ramifications of this action will be addressed in an upcoming post in this blog. But once more, I want to stress the importance of the word ‘recognized.’

WE the People of all OUR individual states must cast our votes in public by affidavits as detailed above. Although the person, persons or party is not the issue of utmost importance, a majority is. WE the People need to, by an overwhelming majority, show that WE are united, in voting for OUR sovereign rights. WE already have these rights, which cannot be taken or forfeited. But WE the People need to have these rights recognized. To a corrupt system and through the democratic process in OUR republic, it is only the majority that is recognized and determines the outcome of any election.

WE the People need to show an overwhelming majority of US, WE the People are united. As such, WE the People will be recognized! These are the facts and they are undisputed!

In a later post in this blog, I will give greater detail as to wording of the affidavit. I realize that some states will have elections for governor in November of 2010. Rest assured that the details for the affidavit will be published here, long before that time. These affidavits will need to be recorded before the November elections.

Please do not misunderstand me. It is important that all offices in government locally, by county, state and the national level, should have the most qualified people as the servants of, by and for US, WE the People.  But there is not a single one of US, WE the People or any servant of the People which have not been adversely affected by this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system, choking the very breath of OUR republic! Person, persons, and party are not of the most importance, it is OUR sovereign and unalienable rights that must be overwhelmingly recognized! To do this WE the People must…

…Vote for a sovereign and component state governor,

in the next election where you are a citizen resident, in public, by affidavit and by overwhelming numbers!

Throughout this blog it has been repeatedly stated that OUR solution to the re-storing of OUR republic is simple. It is! It has also been reiterated that the same simple solution may be difficult. All that I am asking of myself and of all of US, WE the People will take some time, effort and even some monetary costs and expenses. All OUR states should have a sovereign state governor seated. Governors are normally elected for a term of four years. WE do not elect or re-elect governors in every state at the same time. So this process may take a few years to complete. It will take some time to fill out an affidavit, have a notary public authenticate it, and have it become a record with your county clerks office. There may be costs involved in paper, photocopies, transportation, paying a notary public, paying to have the affidavit recorded, postage in mailing a copy to the governor candidate you wish to elect and perhaps attorney fees should you encounter any problems with the wording of the affidavit or resistance from the county clerk’s office in recording it. Yes, though the solution is simple, it may be difficult and requires the participation of each one of US, WE the People.

Let me close this post with the questions to follow. If you and I will not do this, who will? If this is not the solution, what is? If WE the People will not do this now, when will it be done? Will it ever be done? Finally, what is the cost you and I are willing to pay for liberty?

Next Time: The Cost of Liberty

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – The Cost of Liberty
Previous Post – How to Seat a Sovereign State Governor
Front Page Welcome & Introduction

How to Restore, WE the People!

February 21, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 2/21/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

Here is where we are so far:

The List (simplified)

1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

2.   The 9/12 Project?

3.   ‘The Commerce Clause?

4.   Convening a Constitutional Congress

5.   Hope that the present circumstances will change and the will of WE the People will be implemented?

6.   Hope that the other party will get its act together and produce the necessary changes for WE the People in future elections?

7.   Remain divided and work for self, other causes, parties and candidates?

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” – WE are working on this Now!

Today: How To Restore WE the People

WE the People in order to form a more perfect union…,” must understand that it is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system which has undermined OUR republic, ever since 1861. WE the People must understand that this system started at the Executive Branch of the federal government and worked downward through the Legislative and Judiciary Branches, to the once sovereign states and finally, to WE the People. WE the People must understand that OUR republic began with WE the people, and a corrupt system worked downward to WE the People. WE the People must understand that WE need to work backwards or reverse engineer OUR republic. WE the People must understand that OUR republic still exists. WE the People must understand that OUR republic started with US, WE the People and it can only be restored by US, WE the People!

How do WE the People restore OUR republic? The answer is so simple and it begins with US, WE the People!

WE the People with unalienable rights (rights which cannot be taken or forfeited) decided to secure those rights for all of US, WE the people. WE would form a bond, a union. The forefathers and foremothers of US, WE the People of 13 colonies in 1776, decided individually, mutually and together to appoint, designate or vote for certain servants to represent US in the Continental Congress. The separate and individual colonies voluntarily decided and unanimously declared OUR independence.

One could certainly view the bonds formed were compulsory and out of fear that unless they were united together, they would fall separately. My view is that those decisions were of wisdom knowing that unless they united they would fall. And the decisions to unite were from bonds stronger than fear. For what other reason, than the mutual love of independence and liberty, would they have united against an enemy so formidable that they had little if any chance of defeating? But unite they did and win they did!

After securing OUR individual and unified independence, WE the People voluntarily formed individual, separate and independent, sovereign states. Once again, WE the People sent representatives to serve OUR will, to the Constitutional Congress. By 1789, WE the people of the several sovereign and independent states voluntarily entered into a union (one by one) of a republic around a Constitution, with limited powers granted to a central government. Each separate, individual and sovereign state had its own voluntary constitution; its own constitutional republic, by the will of its own people.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence

OUR first Constitution was a confederation. OUR second was a federation. By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. This definition and this assumption are FALSE within the confines of OUR republic; OUR Constitutional government. The federalists argued with the anti-federalists over this very thing in the 1700’s and it also invariably led to the formation of the Confederation of States, from the so called American Civil War.

WE do have a federation, a federal republic and OUR Constitution is the supreme law of OUR country. WE do have a democratic republic. A democracy is the rule by majority whereas a republic is the rule by law. So how could these seemingly contradictory elements possibly coexist or be in harmony? The answer is found first in OUR unalienable rights (rights which cannot be taken or forfeited) and government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” (WE the People.). All of these centers upon one single word ‘confer,’ as opposed to ‘transfer.’

The individual is sovereign, endowed with certain unalienable rights. Therefore OUR states are sovereign and OUR country is a sovereign nation. Together, WE mutually and voluntarily agreed to form a union among US of the separate and sovereign, component states. WE sent servant representatives to represent US. WE mutually and voluntarily agreed to a Constitution and to form a government with limited powers, and separate branches to secure OUR unalienable rights. To expedite matters, WE voluntarily agreed to settle many of OUR disagreements by the principles of democracy or by a majority. WE have transferred none of OUR individual rights, those rights which cannot be taken or forfeited, to anyone or to any thing! WE have simply conferred certain powers to be executed by the government, by the consent (permission, will etc.) of the governed which is US, WE the People.

Originally in OUR first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation stated that to change the Constitution, all member states had to unanimously agree. Another distinction was that if the central government needed anything, from the separate, sovereign and component states like taxes etc., the central government would have to ask for it. Yet another distinction between OUR first and second Constitution was the idea of a perpetual union.  There are other differences between the two constitutions, but for now, WE are focusing on these three. But all the distinctions between the two constitutions, proceed from the individual unalienable rights and the consent of the governed which is US, WE the People!

Imagine a national election. Would WE the People all agree on the same person to become president? Can you imagine that if under invasion by some foreign entity that the sovereign states could unanimously act in time to respond? Could you imagine the government, in order to fund the response to such an invasion, having to wait until the sovereign states all unanimously and voluntarily agreed to provide the funds? Would these things be impossible, No! Is it probable that WE would not all voluntarily agree or act in time, Yes! So here are some practical applications where a democratic republic could continue to function, while still securing OUR individual and sovereign rights.

In the first Constitution, the government would need to ask US for money and each of the sovereign states by the consent of those sovereign citizen governments would have to voluntarily agree, but they could also voluntarily disagree. In OUR second Constitution, it is more like OUR government just sends a bill, which WE the People have voluntarily and mutually agreed to pay.

The ideas of a perpetual union were stricken from OUR second Constitution and would logically allow secession among the several states. How can I write these things?

In the preamble to our Constitution it states clearly the following:

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union

The constitution was not considered the document of a perfect union, but “a more perfect union.” If it was not a perfect union, why should it remain a perpetual union? That is neither its intent nor its purpose!

Read the above excerpt to The Declaration of Independence again. Then read the following, also from the same document.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence

Whose “right” and whose “duty” (responsibility) is it, “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security?” It is the right and the responsibility of US, WE the people.

So here WE have the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory words, phrases and concepts as: Confederation, Federation, Republic, Democracy, and Sovereign. All these have proceeded out of the People, by the People and for the People! The rights of the individual are unalienable. They can not be taken, forfeited, transferred or even conferred. WE the People do not transfer or confer rights. Privileges and even some freedoms can be transferred and these are inalienable rights, not unalienable rights.

What is an inalienable right? For example, years ago Coors beer was only available in Colorado and in Kansas. If you lived in a border state, you had the freedom, the privilege and the inalienable right to buy beer in Colorado or Kansas and take it to your state for consumption, but not for sale. Now one can purchase Coors Beer from wherever it is sold (provided that you are of legal age to purchase it). The only difference is the price difference based on taxes and the law of supply and demand (whatever the market will bear) and what the seller can get for it. By the way, Miller Brewing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin now owns Coors, but that’s another story.

WE the People confer power, limited powers to governments to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the only thing that may be construed as being perpetual, OUR unalienable rights!

It has only been through crisis (real or perceived) and interpretation of OUR laws that WE the People have experienced more power being executed by our governments, over the past many years and especially, since 1861. It must be clear, one last time that governments derive their just powers by OUR consent, OUR mutual, voluntary and individual consent. This nation did NOT begin and does NOT continue without US, WE the people! Above all, each of US, WE the People have unalienable rights. Each of US, WE the People are equal and therefore each equally powerful! Do I understand this power? Do you? Do WE, understand this power?

If you and I and If WE the People understand OUR individual and unified power because of OUR unalienable rights, then the HOW to Restore, WE the People rests upon sovereign rights!

In a sense, WE do not need to restore US, WE the People. It is more of recognition of what WE already have. What WE already have cannot be restored in the concept of restoring something that is damaged, altered, changed or missing. Sovereign rights, no matter how they are defined, are rights. They are OUR rights! Whether these sovereign rights have come from a monarch, by God, or by default as the rights were just always in existence, they are still rights. They are unalienable and sovereign rights that cannot be taken, forfeited, transferred or conferred, with or without OUR consent! If this were not true, they would not be unalienable rights, they would be inalienable rights which could be taken, forfeited, transferred or conferred. But they are not!

As this nation of sovereign individuals that mutually and voluntarily agreed to form sovereign states united, to mutually and voluntarily form a sovereign nation constituted, it so continues or can be changed by WE the People, if WE the People so will.

From 1776, empowerment of, by and for the people went up to government – limited. From 1861, legal fiction empowerment went down from the government to the people with seemingly power unlimited. Where it stands right now is with US, WE the People. It is OUR right and OUR responsibility to send the message of, by, and for the People that governments works for US. WE do not work for the government. This is the recognition of OUR individual and sovereign unalienable rights. And it begins again where it has always been, with each one of US, WE the People. It begins with the recognition of our individual sovereign rights in the sovereign state where WE live and with the governor of OUR sovereign state. This is the solution. It is so very simple. If you recall or look at a previous post, it has already been brought up. See:

The Most Important Person

So what is involved in the recognition of OUR sovereign rights? It is nothing different than what WE the People already do and that is, WE vote. But the distinction here is not what particular person or party WE vote for, but what office and how. The office is the governor of OUR particular state. The how is by voting for this governor to be the governor of OUR sovereign, individual and component state. How do WE the People do that? The point here is not necessarily to change the person, persons or party WE the People vote for or when WE vote, but HOW WE vote. The HOW is that our votes are recognized as sovereign citizens for a sovereign governor of OUR separate, sovereign, individual state, among the states voluntarily united in OUR republic.

For a long time now, I have promised you that what WE can do about all of this and HOW to do it is coming! I have in part, kept my promise in this post of this blog. Is this too simple? WE rarely believe, trust or accept simplicity, in the complex world in which WE live. Are WE ready to believe, trust and accept a simple solution, to re-forming “a more perfect union?”

The solution has been given! What remains to be seen is HOW; WE the People can apply the solution. It too, is really quite simple. It will not take forever or even a lifetime. It will only take a small amount of time and your direct participation. It may be difficult, but WE can do it IF, WE the People so will to do it. Do WE so will?

What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue with…

Next Time: Recognition of OUR Sovereign Rights

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle


Next Post – Recognition of OUR Sovereign Rights
Previous Post – Re-Forming “a more perfect union”
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction