Posts Tagged ‘Martial Law’

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
Advertisements

Bread on the Bottom of US

March 9, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/9/10

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: The Bread on the Bottom of US – a summary

In a sandwich, there are usually two pieces of bread and something in the middle. In OUR republic, the piece of bread on top of US, WE the People are all the causes even though of good intentions, are divisive because, WE are not united. If WE are not united, WE are divided. It’s just that simple. The piece of bread on the bottom US, WE the People is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” And in the middle of the sandwich is US, WE the People. What follows is a summary of the piece of bread on bottom of US.

Last time, WE saw that WE are the jam in the middle of the sandwich. WE the People are the only solution. It is US, WE the People that must tear down and rip out the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” the “legal fiction” that has co-mingled itself within OUR republic. After those brief introductory remarks…   🙂

…the summary of the bottom piece of bread beneath US, WE the People, follows. These are the facts and they are undisputed. The conclusions are yours. The “system” removed or allowed to continue, is dependent upon an overwhelming number of US, WE the People overwhelmingly recognizing and are overwhelmingly recognized that WE are the only solution!

Please Note: Since I was born in the state of Missouri and it is known as the ‘Show Me’ state, you will see the words ‘Show me,’ repeated often below.

  1. In 1861, Congress had adjourned sine die (pronounced sign-e die-e, Latin “without a day”), to reconvene. President Abraham Lincoln summoned them back by presidential order April 15, 1861, invoking the “Extraordinary occasions” clause of the U.S, Constitution Article 2 Section 3. Congress responded as ordered and citing the same clause as the president, re-convened July 4th, 1861. No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional Congress that re-convened on that day. Therefore, it was an Executive Congress. If you prefer, call this an Extraordinary Occasion Congress. Even though Congress has continued to convene and adjourn since 1861, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861? Draw your own conclusions.
  2. If the Congress was under the jurisdiction or control of the Executive Branch, how did the Judiciary operate? No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional Judiciary Branch. The president from the proclamation of 1861, called the military into service as the Commander in Chief, to suppress a rebellion, not to declare a war as only Congress could do. The military and/or military justice (rule by force) would replace the courts (rule by law). Therefore, it was an Executive Judiciary. If you prefer, call this an Extraordinary Occasion Judiciary. In Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution it states in part – “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it…” Even though the Judiciary Branch has continued to operate since 1861 and specifically 1863 under the Conscription Act ever since, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861 or 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  3. On February 25, 1863, The National Bank Act became federal law. It established a “system” for a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks,” raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law was later replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864 and other such laws, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (income tax) ever since. Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of the control over OUR money being changed since 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  4. In 1863, Congress passed the Conscription Act and it was signed into law by President Lincoln March 3rd, 1863. Not only did this law require people to be drafted into the military, but to enforce the law, it set up “districts” among all the northern states and when under control of the union army, all the southern states as well. While appearing constitutional among the states, in having representation in congress, the true power of enforcement was a provost-marshal of each “district.” No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to think of or use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional representation of the several states. Therefore, these once sovereign and component states became Executive “district” states. If you prefer, call them Extraordinary Occasion States. Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of the jurisdiction over “district” states being changed since 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  5. General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, effectively put the entire country under Martial Law. It is specifically so named in SECTION I – “Martial LawMilitary jurisdictionMilitary necessityRetaliation.” Even though Martial Law was lifted after the war, southern states re-entered the union and habeas corpus was restored, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of jurisdiction over “district” states, the Judiciary and Legislative Branch being restored to their original Constitutional authority? Or do all remain under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of government? Is our entire nation still an Extraordinary Occasion nation? Draw your own conclusions.
  6. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, making it law that slavery or involuntary servitude “shall not exist.” Was this an Executive Extraordinary Occasion Congress or a Constitutional Congress? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of jurisdiction to enforce this law has not and is not still, residing under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? Draw your own conclusions.
  7. December 6, 1865, the several states ratified the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, thereby making it part of, “the law of the land.” Was this “ratification” made by sovereign and component states or were they Extraordinary Occasion “district states” under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “any place subject to their jurisdiction,” meaning, the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  8. On June 13, 1866, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Was this passed by a Constitutional Congress or an Executive Extraordinary Occasion Congress? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “within its jurisdiction,” meaning the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  9. On July 9th, 1868, the several states ratified the 14th Amendment, making it a part of the “law of the land,” the U.S. Constitution. Were these sovereign and component states or the Extraordinary Occasion “district” states of 1863?  Does this Amendment 14 Section 1, name a new class of citizenship? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” referring to the citizens and their relationship to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  10. From the ratification February 3, 1870, with the 15th Amendment added to the U.S. Constitution, was this made a part of “the law of the land,” by sovereign and component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district” states? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “citizens of the United States” Amendment 15 Section 1, referring to the citizens and their relationship to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  11. February 3, 1913, the several states ratified the 16th Amendment which allowed the Federal Government to collect income taxes “from whatever sources derived.” Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the necessary ¾ of the states actually ratified this law, as it is written, in the U.S. Constitution? Even if you could, were these states sovereign and component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district states? Draw your own conclusions.
  12. Amendments 17 – 27 from 1913 to 1992, to the U.S. Constitution, were these ratified by sovereign component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district” states? Please understand that I am not advocating the return of slavery or the denial of ‘the vote’ to all eligible citizens regardless of race, color, creed, sex or legal age. The questions are not to the intention of these amendments or even their effectiveness, but the jurisdiction; control over them and were they proposed by a Constitutional Congress or a Extraordinary Occasion Executive Congress, and were they ratified by Constitutional State Legislatures or Extraordinary Occasion, Executive State “district” Legislatures?
  13. Article 1 Section 8. U.S. Constitution in part reads: – “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,…” This is obviously referring to what we know as, Washington D.C. or the “District” of Columbia. In 1871, the Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871. – CHAPTER 62, 1871 16 United States Statutes at Large 419 FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III . CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. —“An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.” The original intent of the Constitution is that no state would have an unfair advantage or control of the seat of OUR united central government. Congress was given the exclusive control, to govern this “district,” the District of Columbia. Even as a “body corporate” it was not to be and is, not inconsistent with the Constitution. It is set up as a republic etc. It does have a constitution. Its physical boundaries are confined to 10 square miles. However, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of items numbering 1 -12 above, have ever been changed since 1861? Therefore, this seat of government, this “District” of Columbia, Washington D.C., incorporates the Extraordinary Occasion “district” citizens, the Extraordinary Occasion “district” states, with exclusive control over both its “district” states and its “district” citizens by the Extraordinary Occasion Congress. The Extraordinary Occasion Congress and the Extraordinary Occasion Judiciary remain under the jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Occasion Executive Branch and ultimately with the president of the United States. This is the “system” of which I have referred to so often as, a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”  It is “legal fiction.” It is interpretation, legalese, legal speak and a mindset established under “extraordinary Occasions,” since 1861. Since 1861, it has continued to operate to the present-day.  As such, it is not inconsistent with the Constitution as it is set up as republic and a corporate form of government with a constitution. But it has “exclusive” jurisdiction, power and control over the entire country, and its people. OUR republic and OUR constitution, and OUR unalienable rights remain hidden under its veil of secrecy. It is not a person, persons or a party’s secrecy, but the secrecy or hidden self, of itself. This is not a conspiracy in that there is no single person, persons or a party to blame. It is what it is, a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” Most people under it cannot see this anymore than most people that operate it. All are “useful idiots” until all can see it, know how to tear it down and rip it out of OUR republic and DO IT which is to – RIP IT DOWN AND TEAR IT OUT! Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861? Can anyone Show me that all the laws and even amendments to OUR Constitution since 1861, have ever been amended, rescinded, canceled or overturned since 1861? Can anyone Show me that these are not the facts and that they are not undisputed? Draw your own conclusions.

To those of US, WE the people that have long wondered or felt in OUR ‘gut’ and to those that now wonder or feel in their ‘gut’ that something is seriously wrong in OUR republic, can anyone Show me that it is not this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which explains it?

The bread on top of US, WE the People with all the almost innumerable causes and multiple directions, can anyone Show me that these do not divide US and even though good intentioned, prevent US from being united?

The bread on the bottom of US, WE the People with all its intricate tentacle like details; exclusive jurisdiction and control over US, WE the people, OUR Country, OUR States, OUR government, OUR republic and thus preventing the normal flow of OUR Constitution, controls it as well, can anyone Show me that it is not a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system”?

The jam in the middle of this sandwich is US, WE the People.

This sandwich is eating US, WE the People, you and me, OUR public servants, OUR nation, OUR, republic, OUR Constitution and the future security of OUR liberty; OUR unalienable rights and OUR posterity.

WE are being eaten alive!

Next Time: Purple Haze

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 – Purple Haze
Previous Post – WE the Jam
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

The Storm before the Calm

March 2, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/1/10

all rights reserved

Today: The Storm before the Calm

Last time WE looked into the importance of having the necessary resolve and unity of purpose to pay OUR price to secure, protect and preserve OUR Liberty. In summary, these are the costs:

Resolved: That each of US, WE the People, has the same heart of a Patrick Henry, to choose Liberty over death.

Resolved: That each of US, WE the People, has the same conviction as OUR Marines, to also be, “always faithful!

Resolved: That each of US, WE the People, has the same courage as a Robin DeHaven, to “run into the fire and not away from it!”

Today, WE the People will come to understand why this resolve is so important, to OUR unity of Purpose.

Ordinarily, in matters relating to a storm, they are usually preceded by calm. As to the re-storing of OUR republic; the tearing down and ripping out of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘legal fiction’ system, there may be a storm, before the calm. Another way to look at this is, chaos before cosmos, or yin and yang, two opposites and as, two opposing forces. Before the explanation of the ‘storm before the calm,’ let US project into the future to the time when WE the People have successfully seated OUR original jurisdiction, sovereign and component state governors.

On the day that OUR entire 50 original jurisdiction;- sovereign and component state governors have been seated, the following will happen at the same time. The effects above and below the governor, will automatically occur, as the image below will show.

Once the original jurisdiction Governor, of every original; sovereign and component state has been seated, by default or automatically – all will rise or fall into place:

ABOVE:

Ÿ All U.S. representatives & U.S. Senators once seated, will become a Constitutional Congress

Ÿ The Executive Judiciary Branch will become a Constitutional Judiciary Branch

Ÿ The Executive Branch will become a Constitutional Executive Branch

BELOW:

Ÿ All state governments will become sovereign state governments

Ÿ All local governments will become sovereign state – local governments

ABOVE & BELOW:

Ÿ WE the People are recognized as the original jurisdiction, sovereign People of the several states and the true power of OUR republic!

WOW, if you never thought that you or your vote mattered, think again! Look at the POWER, WE the People really have IF WE know it and exercise it. By one single act of, specifically voting for OUR original jurisdiction governors, WE have successfully torn down and ripped out the ‘legal fiction;’ corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system and re-stored OUR original republic, all in a single moment in time!!!

OK, let US imagine that WE the People are able to accomplish this re-storation within the next few years. Let US project into the future again, to the time when WE the People have successfully seated OUR original jurisdiction; sovereign and component state governors.

Everything WE have read before, all happens and takes place in one single moment in time. Then what? Then WE the People will understand why resolve is so important, to OUR unity of Purpose. Then WE the People will understand that before the calm, there will be a storm! Why?

The moment that WE the People regain control of OUR republic, everything reverts back to 1861! Think about that. What would be gone?

For starters, every single amendment to the Constitution after 1861 – gone! Every presidential executive order from the present-day to 1861 would become null and void. Whatever it may be called, the former essence of Martial Law would no longer be in force.

Oh, and all of this applies to all state and local constitutions and laws too.

But, Yay, no more federal income tax! No Federal Reserve Board or Federal Reserve Banks. No federal reserve notes. WE would have to go back to gold and silver, as per the Constitution.

There would be no more welfare programs. Social Security would cease to exist. Now before you freak out about that, what ever is presently in your account (the sum total of what you are owed right now), the government would have to immediately return to you, because it’s your money. OH, and the amount of money each of US are owed by the government, does not just end with Social Security. There is more, a whole lot more.

This is just a partial list out of many, many things that which would change, the day we tear down and rip out this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system.

THINGS WILL NOT JUST SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR! WE will need to re-form OUR government to its original state, OUR thinking and the thinking of those that serve US will have to change!

Sometimes in order for there to be calm, there must first come a storm. Before Cosmos (order, peace & harmony) is returned to balance, there is a period of chaos or disorder. Removing the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” from OUR republic is like suddenly removing the training wheels from OUR bicycle (OUR republic). WE don’t need the training wheels, WE just think WE do and so does OUR government. But when the training wheels are removed, WE will wobble, weave, run into stuff and even fall. WE pick OURselves up and keep riding until, WE realize that WE have had the balance all along!

Do WE understand now, why WE must have the resolve and unity of purpose? WE will need it! Do we understand now, why there is going to be a storm before there’s calm and chaos (disorder) before cosmos (order, peace and harmony) is re-realized? WE need to remain calm, but resolute. WE need to stand up together and support one another.

There is no question that we need a strong, but balanced; powerful, but limited central government to secure, preserve and protect the sovereign and unalienable rights of each one of US and for all of US, WE the People.

But WE must understand that in order to accomplish this re-storation of OUR republic, there will be confusion and resistance. Both confusion and resistance are by-products or leftovers (mentally), of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system that has been over 100 years in the making. It is a mind-set. Those that have depended upon government will have to change. Those in government will have to change. They will need to get used to the idea that WE are the boss of them, not the other way around. WE will have to continue to press OUR will upon the government and continuously and continually be recognized, as the original and sovereign power bases as, WE the People. WE must direct OUR will, step by step, to make all the practical changes needed for OUR representatives to follow explicitly.

Amendments, laws and executive orders will need to be either completely scrapped or rewritten. For example, do WE really need amendments in our present-day that frees slaves, outlaws slavery, and gives all men (inclusive noun) and women the right to vote? Are these matters not already addressed in The Declaration of Independence? Is it not written…

that all men [inclusive noun includes women] are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

WE would have to define however, the legal age and ‘constitute’ the age of an adult, in order to vote.

These are just a few of the matters which WE need to address. The point is that WE the People must make these decisions and empower OUR representatives to execute and legislate. We must exercise OUR will to the judiciary. It is OUR will that must be decided upon, not have these decisions made for US.

Confusing? It absolutely is! This is exactly, why this system must be eliminated! Is it all hopeless? It absolutely is not! Think of this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” like this – imagine a bicycle with training wheels again.

OUR republic is the bicycle. WE the people used to be the ones that rode the bike and WE didn’t need training wheels after the constitution was written and ratified in 1789.

For over 100 years, training wheels have been added to the bicycle again. WE have been under the impression that the bicycle has become too complicated and it requires the so-called smart people in charge to ride it. Common sense tells US that WE could ride this bike without the training wheels, but the training wheels are still there. By voting for OUR sovereign; original jurisdiction and component state governors, WE the People remove the training wheels. Since others (government officials) have been riding OUR bicycle, for all these many years with the training wheels, what do you suppose will happen when the wheels are suddenly removed? There will be some wobbling and weaving; some running into stuff and even falling. Why is this? In the first place it’s not their bicycle, it’s OURS. Secondly, OUR representatives have been conditioned to riding it with the training wheels. It’s like writing a 2,000 page bill. Exactly how long does it take for me to come over to your house and pick up the trash? Not too long. How long does it take government? Well, first there is a committee to study the feasibility of picking up your trash. Then it just continues in this manner for a long time, through many departments and after all this expense, your trash still has not been picked up. That’s ridiculous and that’s like writing a 2,000 page bill or riding a bicycle with training wheels. WE are told these training wheels are necessary when they really are not.

Riding without training wheels will be difficult at first, just to stay in balance. Having to agree, get along and play nicely with others will seem strange in the beginning. Relying on common sense will be almost unheard of; new and different! Like a parent, WE will need to hold the bike and run along side of our children (representatives) and help them keep balance until they get the balance and they recognize that it’s OUR bicycle, not theirs. They just get to ride it for a little while and not the rest of their lives. To work in government is a service, a response from a grateful heart, for nation that secures the unalienable rights of every individual. This is the attitude that must be changed, in order to weather the storm, before the calm.

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.

Ask yourself these questions. Is OUR government working for US or do WE work for government? Has government become too big? Is government too big to fail or is it failing US because it is too big? Yes, size does matter and in this matter it does not matter well. Government is supposed to be limited. Why? So it does not get out of control and take control. Government is supposed to be an overseer; a steward. You cannot oversee, what you cannot see over. You cannot steward what is not entrusted and empowered to your authority or within your ability to steward!

Is the solution to tearing down and ripping out a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system too difficult for US? Do WE prefer to be safe over the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Finally, if WE the People will not do this, who will? If not now, when?

Next Time: The Bread on Top of WE

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 PostThe Bread on Top of WE
Previous Post – The Cost of Liberty
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

The Day the States Ceased to Exist

February 16, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 2/16/10

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: The Day the States United Ceased to Exist!

Previously WE saw HOW the Congress ceased to exist as a Constitutional Legislative Branch of government and became thereafter and to this present-day, an Executive Congress under the control of the Executive Branch and ultimately, the president. WE saw that both the Judiciary and Legislative Branches of government were in all actuality, under Martial Law. WE saw that despite any honorable or good intentions or that the Constitution was invoked, this was not constitutional, it was manipulation! How has this continued to this present-day and even more importantly, when did the states lose their sovereignty?

Since 1861, the country was under Martial Law. Two years later it still was and there were 3 dramatic events which started in 1862 and specifically in1863.

First, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a presidential order which was the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. It declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second presidential order was The Emancipation Proclamation issued
January 1, 1863, which freed slaves from specific areas in 10 specific states. For our purposes here, both of these orders will merge as one, for the year 1863.

Second, was the Conscription Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln, March 3, 1863. This law called for a national draft to be implemented, divided the country into districts and provided for the enforcement of the law by a provost-marshal (military control).

Conscription Act

SEC. 4.

And be it further enacted, That, for greater convenience in enrolling, calling out, and organizing the national forces, and for the arrest of deserters and spies of the enemy, the United States shall constitute one or more, as the President shall direct, and each congressional district of the respective states, as fixed by a law of the state next preceding the enrolment, shall constitute one: Provided, That in states which have not by their laws been divided into two or more congressional districts, the President of the United States shall divide the same into so many enrolment districts as he may deem fit and convenient.

SEC 8.

And be it further enacted, That in each of said districts there shall be a board of enrolment, to be composed of the provost-marshal, as president, and two other persons, to be appointed by the President of the United States, one of whom shall be a licensed and practicing physician and surgeon.

Conscription Act (March 3, 1863)

This was and in effect, martial law. Just a short time after the public became aware of the new law, riots broke out across the country. The worst riot occurred in New York City, NY and lasted for three days, destroying much of the city and cost the lives of many. Not only was the Congress and the Judiciary under Executive control by the president, so were the states and would include the southern states when under control of the union.

The third event of 1863, was when the term ‘Martial Law’ was literally put into force.

General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office

SECTION I

Martial LawMilitary jurisdictionMilitary necessityRetaliation

General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code

So Congress was under jurisdiction of the military as was the judiciary and all of the states under the union in the north and any state in the south where union forces were able to subdue. The districts were already defined in the Conscription Act.

At the conclusion of the conflict and after the surrender of the south, Martial Law was lifted from all states except for Missouri (they seemed to like it). Martial law was later lifted in Missouri, by military action, sometime after the assassination of President Lincoln.

By proclamation (executive order) of the president in 1861, Congress became an Executive Congress, not a Constitutional Congress and it so remains to this present-day. The legal fiction states and legal fiction country from 1861 became law passed by the Executive Congress and signed by the president in the Conscription Act of 1863, designating the former sovereign states as “districts.” These “districts” (areas in and including the several states), have never been rescinded or  cancelled by any president or Congress since, or overturned by any Supreme Court!

Theses districts (former sovereign states) are still,

under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government!

This corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system took jurisdiction over the Legislative, Judiciary Branches of the Federal Government and of the several states, placing it into the Executive Branch and ultimately, the president. It would need only to take jurisdiction over WE the People.

Next Time: The Day WE the People, Ceased to Exist

I have promised and will keep my promise. I promise you that what WE can do about all of this and HOW to do it is coming! WE are in it, right now! The solution is on the way! It 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.

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 Day WE the People Ceased to Exist!
Previous Post – Re-writing History!
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction