Sidestepping even plausible speculation, we thrust forward. First, do I, via evidence, believe that secret societies represent a clear and present danger to the denizens of the world? Of course, but a great deal cannot be adequately vetted. There exists a fundamental reason that they are called secret societies. They have, for the majority, been able to keep secrets. Like V said, “There are no coincidences… just the illusion of coincidence.”
Think of me as a prosecutor of a trial. The defendants are all considered “Founding Fathers.” Exhibit A is The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson did willfully plagiarize writings of John Locke. John Adams thought the DOI to be unoriginal and trite. Fellow-Federalist, James Madison justified the transparent plagiarism, "The object was to assert, not to discover truths." Oh, really? We will deal with you shortly Mr. Madison.
Remember what we wrote about the First Continental Congress? Within their declaration of rights, they echoed the writings of, especially John Locke (with additional influence of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu). Some of those rights were: assembly, trial by jury, and life, liberty, and private property. I had made emphasis on the private property.
Secret societies were the guide of Marx, not the ivory-tower bs. Private property is a prohibited. Now observe: [from the DOI] “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-.”
Whoa! The noted change is a radical shift. Would colonists who gave their lives, were wounded, or who only fought for their independence have signed on for such pap?
Then the onus is placed on King George III, instead of Parliament and their unholy marriage with the trading companies and other prominent British businessmen. It is true, that once George got pushed into a dangerous position and a corner that he came out fighting. But what Jefferson et al. laid on him is a misdirection. Again from the DOI: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
We now enter Exhibit B. -“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.-
Exhibit C, please from the Constitution, Article. I. Section. 8. “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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Now if you think that this was amended, then I refer you to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act which is a federal law passed on December 24, 1973. The statute gave Congress even greater tyrannical powers over D.C.
We maintain that Samuel Adams and others trumped up charges against British to set the stage of transference of power. We had left off with America being a dystopia in 1784. So-called Founding Fathers blamed the Articles of Confederation for the infant nation’s problems. The truth is that an oligarchy occupied the several states.
Starting in 1786, in and around mostly Springfield, Massachusetts, Daniel Shays led a sharp uprising that took months to put down. The general populace had gotten a raw deal with the Revolutionary War. Of course, the rebellion became an excuse and talking point for radically changing the Articles of Confederation. Modern-day talking-heads do the same thing.
In September 1786, in Annapolis, Maryland (a reminder of this state’s balking at ratifying the AOC), representatives/delegates from five of the states called for a Constitutional Convention to bandage and “fix” the AOC. The tactic/strategy sounds just like the various attempted calls during the 1980s. Yeppers! The states cannot agree on eight or nine amendments, but somehow miraculously they will agree on a fix. Hmmmm; sounds like: “the fix is in.”
So, after all the RSVPs were in, representatives from twelve states staged a Constitutional Convention starting on May 14, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The State of Rhode Island reasoned that the convention would work against them, so they cleverly stayed away to ensure the protection of their interests from the other states, of which many of them were technically at war with Rhode Island. In a few swift years, America went from the Beacon of Enlightenment for the whole world to Terminal Stupidity.
Now the fate of millions of Americans, regardless of their defects, was about to be decided by an exclusive group of Anglophile men of whom almost everyone was a slave owner. The Constitutional debates were often with thirty to forty delegates/representatives. It was a farce. The secret societies’ prized prostitute was James Madison. He arrived early and often. Being the first one there in Philadelphia, Madison went to work. He, along with Edmund Randolph, was able to convince George Washington to attend as a delegate (from Virginia). The convention would have likely collapsed without Washington’s presence.
Madison networked intensely, yet with a subtle cover. He drew out his initial draft. The arrival of the rest of the Virginia delegation (whom he had requested to come early) along with the majority of the Pennsylvania delegation became Madison’s initial base and momentum-building coalition. Charles Pinckney also had a plan, but no allies. Madison was slick. He quietly and subtlely operated. He came to Philadelphia well-armed with hundreds of books and papers on governments. The mini-library made him appear as the absolute authority on the subject.
Madison was quite confident that no other state delegation would be looking to push a blueprint for a strong central government. The first task was to have the Convention on a few “basics.” Then was the assent that the Convention should proceed beyond its mandate. The goal was now to produce a ground-floor up Constitution rather than just amending the AOC.
The next kitty-step was to get the Convention to vote upon and approve Madison’s Virginia plan. Once accomplished, the tweaking began. The reality was that it was all over for the American Experiment. Fundamentally, the clever brainwashing gave birth to aristocratic groupthink. “Oh! We need a reasonable army and navy. We need to regulate our trade with the European nations. We need powers over the states.”
From this point forward, all discussions and actions centered and focussed on ensuring and protecting America’s privileged and elitists. Madison positioned himself directly in front of Washington so he could hear everything. He took careful coded notes. He virtually never stopped writing. If anyone was there at the Convention, then so was Madison.
Madison working the Convention credit
By “educating” the delegates (maximum of 55), debates and considerations yield to having a separate Judiciary, as well as Executive branches. The premeditated bicameral Congress emerged. It all seemed natural as it was consistent with English law.
However, let us reference Madison’s Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787. “In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.”
There you have it. The U.S. Constitution is not a government handed down from God Almighty. America is NOT “One nation under God.” The founding fathers were not Christians; most scarcely professed a belief in God. Patrick Henry was probably to only one to speak up. Look at the U.S. Constitution devoid of the Bill of Rights which was not amendments to the Constitution until four and half years later. Why were these enumerated rights NOT in the original document? By now, I think you already know the answer.
Years later, the appointment of U.S. Senators, by the state legislatures, would backfire as the elite would no longer monopolize these said legislatures.
In Part 9, we will discuss the Bill of Rights for some, and others need not apply.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-1
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-2
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-3
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-4
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-5
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-6
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@aedroberts/so-you-think-you-know-american-history-part-7
We are The Unmentionables. join
Interesting take, that was not an easy read, lots of interconnected parts moving. On a general note, I still find it strange that laws/constitutions/beliefs etc that were formed hundreds of years ago haven't evolved much to meet present day living and this has created a big divide in public opinion. interesting piece
@jasonshick Divide and conquer been in use for quite a while. Laws and the state are tools of repression. As long as the sheople have their sports, celebrities, and retirement programs they will let it all slide.
couldn't agree more, it's how the few control the many
It's always interesting to me how the rationale for things change based on expediency.
For example, one rationale often given for the Civil War's righteousness is that the Articles of Confederation XIII states that the
(This specific phrase is not even in our current Constitution.) But -- the rules of the Articles of the Confederation were not followed when our current Federal government was designed. The Annapolis convention called for a convention of delegates to amend the Articles --a process that would require unanimous consent of all 13 states. But delegates from only 12 states showed up to the Philadelphia convention -- as you mentioned, Rhode Island boycotted. Therefore, under the rules of the Articles of Confederation, ANY changes proposed by this convention had to be ratified unanimously by the Congress of the Articles of Confederation.
But the majority of states didn't want this. So, they chose to follow the ratification process set forth in the new Constitution (which had not been ratified or accepted yet) to ratify this new Constitution (how's that for cheek.) That's like installing a new king and then having the new king declare that the shift of power from the old king to the new king is blessed by the government and therefore lawful. (That's the process that happens in a coup, by the way.)
This approval process also included the proviso that only the states that ratified the new Constitution would be included in the newly created United States of America, and in fact our first President, George Washington, was sworn into office and the new Federal government assumed power long before North Carolina or Rhode Island ratified the new constitution.
Therefore, by the logic of the Civil War apologists, the new Federal government represented rebellion and was illegal and should have been put down by force. However, from a practical standpoint, that would have involved Rhode Island and North Carolina taking on the other 11 states, so obviously that was a non-starter.
The takeaway is -- those with power will get what they want, and they will use whatever fig leaf rationale they need in order to make that happen.
As was pointed out in an earlier of the series, the New England states imported molasses and sugar to manufacture rum which was their currency in the West Indes slave trade. Of the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, I believe fifty-three of them were slave owners.
One of the debates was ultimately a compromise as to a slave counting for 3/5th of a man for representation tally. The War Between the States was hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest. Ever since the American Revolutionary War ended, the War Between the States began. Virginia was the biggest bully and was truly the cause of the Annapolis convention. In the next of the series, they strong-armed other states into ratification.
When slavery suddenly became taboo, the truce was over, and the whole fabric of the Constitution denigrated. Therefore Lincoln reneging on Habeas Corpus was simply consistent with the rest of the dog and pony show.
Now stop stealing my thunder. Snick! Snick!
Hah! Will do!
Another great piece.
Keep 'em coming!