Civil War and the
Conquest that followed
The government and press propaganda that the War was to free the black
people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand the Civil War
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black people are just as much
slaves today as before the Civil War just as the white people are, and
also we find ourselves subjects of the king/queen of England. The only
thing that changed for black people is they changed masters and were
granted a few rights, which I might add can be taken away anytime the
government chooses. Since the 1930's the black people have been paid
reparations to buy off their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on
the plantation working. I do not say this to shock or come across as
prejudiced, because I'm not. Here's what Russell Means said, for those
that don't remember who he is, he was the father in the movie called,
"Last Of The Mohicians". Russell Means said " until the
white man is free we will never be free", the we he is referring to
are the Indians. There has never been a truer statement, however the
problem is the white people are not aware of their enslavement.
At the risk of being redundant; to set the record straight, because
Lord only knows what will be said about what I just said regarding black
people, I believe that if you are born in this country you are equal,
period. Forget the empty promises of civil rights, what about you
unalienable natural rights under God Almighty. All Americans are feudal
tenants on the land, allowed to rent the property they live on as long as
the king gets his cut. What about self-determination, or being able to own
allodial title to property, which means the king cannot take your property
for failure to pay a tax. Which means you did not own it to begin with.
The king allows you to use the material goods and land. Again this is
financial servitude.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state;
individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e.,
law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and
subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43,
"Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.
The king controlled the government by the time the North won the Civil
War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes,
just as they do now and well placed subjects in the United States
government. This would not have been possible if not for England
destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of
the original 13th Amendment.
According to International law, what took place when the North
conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word
"conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you
acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, then
become subject to the conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in
force until the conquering state wishes to change all or part of them. At
the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change
or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people
through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The
Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power
from the new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the
Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated,
so was the Constitution.
The following is the definition of Conquest: "The acquisition of
the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent
power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire."
"The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is
generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this
is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory,
the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the
principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of
conquest." "The effects of conquest are to confer upon the
conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest
the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered
into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the
annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by
it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over
the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered state
are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain
there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state change their
allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer v.
Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891. "After the transfer of
political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the
territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign."
American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In
international Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force the
southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? The laws of America,
the Constitution were changed by the conquering government. Why? The main
part I want you to see, as I said at the beginning of this paper, is watch
the money and the commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment says the government
debt can not be questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold,
silver and copper and the land. Which can easily be done by increasing the
government debt and making the American people sureties for the debt. This
has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the bankers.
The conquering state is known as a Belligerent, read the following
quotes.
Belligerency, is International Law
"The status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents,
by which their hostilities are legalized. Before they can be recognized as
belligerents they must have some sort of political organization and be
carrying on what is international law is regarded as legal war. There must
be an armed struggle between two political bodies, each of which exercises
de facto authority over persons within a determined territory, and
commands an army which is prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war. It
is not enough that the insurgents have an army; they must have an
organized civil authority directing the army." "The exact point
at which revolt or insurrection becomes belligerency is often extremely
difficult to determine; and belligerents are not usually recognized by
nations unless they have some strong reason or necessity for doing so,
either because the territory where the belligerency is supposed to exist
is contiguous to their own, or because the conflict is in some way
affecting their commerce or the rights of their citizens...One of the most
serious results of recognizing belligerency is that it frees the parent
country from all responsibility for what takes place within the insurgent
lined; Dana's Wheaton, note 15, page 35." Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Belligerent, In International Law.
"As adj. and noun. Engaged in lawful war; a state so engaged. In
plural. A body of insurgents who by reason of their temporary organized
government are regarded as conducting lawful hostilities. Also, militia,
corps of volunteers, and others, who although not part of the regular army
of the state, are regarded as lawful combatants provided they observe the
laws of war; 4 H. C. 1907, arts, 1, 2." Bouvier's Law Dictionary
According to the International law no law has been broken. Read the
following about military occupation, notice the third paragraph. After the
Civil War, title to the land had not been completed to the conquers, but
after 1933 it was. I will address this in a moment. In the last paragraph,
it says the Commander-in- Chief governs the conquered state. The proof
that this is the case today, is the U.S. flies the United States flag with
a yellow fringe on three sides. According to the United States Code, Title
4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it. The difference
being one is a Constitutional flag, and the fringed flag is a military
flag. The military flag means you are in a military occupation and are
governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his executive capacity, not under
any Constitutional authority. Read the following.
Military Occupation
"This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited rights of
sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the original owner
remain intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full rights of sovereignty
and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done by him during military
occupation. Its only essential is actual and exclusive possession, which
must be effective." "A conqueror may exercise governmental
authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's country; and
this will be exercised upon principles of international law; MacLeod v.
U.S., 229 U.S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260." "The
occupant administers the government and may, strictly speaking, change the
municipal law, but it is considered the duty of the occupant to make as
few changes in the ordinary administration of the laws as possible, though
he may proclaim martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and
buildings; he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a
subsequent conquest would probably complete the title..."
"Private lands and houses are usually exempt. Private movable
property is exempt, though subject to contributions and requisitions. The
former are payments of money, to be levied only by the
commander-in-chief...Military necessity may require the destruction of
private property, and hostile acts of communities or individuals may be
punished in the same way. Property may be liable to seizure as booty on
the field of battle, or when a town refuses to capitulate and is carried
by assault. When military occupation ceases, the state of things which
existed previously is restored under the fiction of postliminium
(q.v.)" "Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be
governed, in the first instance, by military power under the direction of
the president, as commander-in-chief. Civil government can only be put in
operation by the action of the appropriate political department of the
government, at such time and in such degree as it may determine. It must
take effect either by the action of the treaty- making power, or by that
of congress. So long as congress has not incorporated the territory into
the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes
it domestic territory, in the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may
establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the
restrictions of the constitution. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup
Ct. 770, 45 L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the
court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Paragraph 1-3 of the definition of Military Occupation describes what
took place during and after the Civil War. What took place during the
Civil War and Post Civil War has been legal under international law. You
should notice in paragraph 3, that at the end of the Civil War, title to
the land was not complete, but the subsequent Conquest completed the
title. When was the next Conquest? 1933, when the American people were
alienated by our being declared enemies of the Conquer and by their
declaring war against all Americans. Read the following quotes and also
(footnote 8).
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress,
November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National
Emergency United States Senate.
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency.... Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the
President may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute
martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a
plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. A
majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives
under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures
guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by
laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least,
the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency.
In Title 12, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of
the emergency war powers: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses,
orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made,
or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by
subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12
USCS, 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed. (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title
1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)
It is clear that the Bankrupt, defacto government of the united States,
which is operating under the War Powers Act and Executive Orders; not the
Constitution for the united States, has in effect issued under its
Admiralty Law, Letters of Marque (piracy) to its private agencies IRS, ATF,
FBI and DEA, with further enforcement by its officers in the Courts, local
police and sheriffs, waged war against the American People and has classed
Americans as enemy aliens.
The following definition is from BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (P. 1934) of
Letters of Marque, it says: "A commission granted by the government
to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of
the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury
committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured
are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the
crew. A vessel to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case
of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque."
Words and Phrases, Dictionary
By the law of nations, an enemy is defined to be "one with whom a
nations at open war." When the sovereign ruler of a state declares
war against another sovereign, it is understood the whole nation declares
war against that other nation. All the subjects of one are enemies to all
the subjects of the other, and during the existence of the war they
continue enemies, in whatever country they may happen to be, "and all
persons residing within the territory occupied by the belligerents,
although they are in fact foreigners, are liable to be treated as
enemies." Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W.Va. 347, 357, quoting Vatt.
Law.Nat.bk. 3, c. 69-71
So we find ourselves enemies in our own country and subjects of a king
that has conquered our land, with heavy taxation and no possibility of
fair representation.
The government has, through the laws of forfeiture, taken prize and
booty for the king; under the Admiralty Law and Executive powers as
declared by the Law of the Flag. None of which could have been done with
the built in protection contained in the true Thirteenth Amendment, which
has been kept from the American People. The fraudulent Amendments and
legislation that followed the Civil War, bankrupted the American People
and put the privateers (banksters) in power, and enforced by the promise
of prize and booty to their partners in crime (government).
The following is the definition of a tyrant.
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines tyrant as follows:
"1. An absolute ruler; one who seized sovereignty illegally; a
usurper. 2. a cruel oppressive ruler; a despot. 3. one who exercises his
authority in an oppressive manner, a cruel master."
"When I see that the right and means of absolute command are
conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy,
a monarchy or republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey
onwards to a land of more helpful institutions." Alexis de
Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 250 [Arlington House (1965)].
So we pick up with paragraph 4, which describes the taxation under
Military Occupation and that you are under Executive control and are bound
under admiralty law by the contracts we enter, including silent contracts
and by Military Occupation.
Notice the last sentence in paragraph 5, Congress may establish a
temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the
Constitution. See also Harvard Law Review - the Insular Cases. This means
you do not have a Constitutional government, you have a military
dictatorship, controlled by the President as Commander-in-Chief. What is
another way you can check out what I am telling you? Read the following
quotes.
"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by
treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress
conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution... In exercising
this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional
limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in
general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations
upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or
over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the
exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United
States, has made those guarantees applicable." [Hooven & Allison
& Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in
arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or
practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the
Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by
Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such
powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. I take
leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the
sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in
our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass
from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written
constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a
government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our
constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to
exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the
constitution." [Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
|
No comments:
Post a Comment