The Great American Republican Experiment, 1774-1812

 

The Great American Republican Experiment, 1774-1812

The Albany Plan, an Early Model

The British government asked colonial representatives to meet in Albany, New York, to develop a treaty with the natives and plan the defense of the colonies against France. Additionally, the assembly adopted a plan developed by Benjamin Franklin for government of the colonies by a central executive and a council of delegates. England rejected this plan but the Albany Plan became a useful guide in the years before the Revolutionary War.

The Albany Congress, or Albany Conference, refers to a meeting of some individuals from seven of the thirteen colonies – Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. They met daily in Albany, New York (June 19 to July 11, 1754) to develop ideas on how to enhance their relationships with the Indian tribes, including designing a better common defensive strategy against the French. The delegate’s main objective included negotiating a treaty with the Mohawks. This allegedly was the first time that citizens of this many colonies had met together. They spent the majority of their time debating Benjamin Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union,[778] which would have formulated a unified colonial entity.

The Albany Plan of Union was primarily the work of Benjamin Franklin and avidly supported by Thomas Hutchinson, the British royal governor of colonial Massachusetts (1771-1774) and a prominent Loyalist in the years before the American Revolution. Representatives from the Mohawks and other native groups attended the meetings.

Opposition to British Oppression Deputies to Represent the People

In July 1774, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) wrote A Summary View of the Rights of British America: Set Forth in Some Resolutions Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, Now in Convention in which he mentions the position of a deputy and refers to the deputies assembling in a “General Congress with the deputies from the other states of British America.” He drafted this document as a set of instructions for the Virginia delegates to the first Continental Congress.

In describing the abuses of the King, Jefferson wrote, “Resolved, that it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in general congress with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said congress that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as chief magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his majesty’s subjects in America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire, upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all.”[779]

Further Jefferson wrote, “But your majesty, or your governors, have carried this power beyond every limit known, or provided for, by the laws: After dissolving one house of representatives, they have refused to call another, so that, for a great length of time, the legislature provided by the laws has been out of existence. From the nature of things, every society must at all times possess within itself the sovereign powers of legislation.

The feelings of human nature revolt against the supposition of a state so situated as that it may not in any emergency provide against dangers which perhaps threaten immediate ruin. While those bodies are in existence to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess and may exercise those powers; but when they are dissolved by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may exercise it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person, sending deputies, or in any other way they may think proper. We forbear to trace consequences further; the dangers are conspicuous with which this practice is replete.”[780]

Thomas Jefferson wrote his Summary before the Declaration of Independence and defined the justifications for the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773) and the imminent American Revolution. Meanwhile, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) was in London attempting to persuade his friends in Parliament to evaluate the potential problems in America over Britain’s excessive taxation. The colonists opposed the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, and the Intolerable Acts, all imposed on an unwilling citizenry. The Stamp Act of 1765, put in force on November 1, 1765, taxed printed materials like newspapers, legal documents, and even dice and playing cards. The Declaratory Act, effective March 18,

1766, repealed the Stamp Act but affirmed the right of British Parliament to make laws that would bind thecolonists“inallcaseswhatsoever.”[781] TheBritishParliamentimposedseveralpunitivemeasures,The Intolerable Acts, in response to the Boston Tea Party. They intended to reverse colonial resistance to parliamentary authority, which began with opposition to the Stamp Act. The British closed the Port of Boston, gave the British-appointed governor of Massachusetts total control of town meetings and ordered the colonists to house British soldiers in the homes of private citizens.

Citizens elected Thomas Jefferson as a delegate to the second Continental Congress on March 27, 1775. Jefferson, a Virginia delegate, quickly established himself in the Continental Congress with the publication of his paper entitled A Summary View of the Rights of British America (brief title).

The Great American Republican Experiment

In 1774, individuals devised what some historians refer to as The Great American Republican Experiment, a plan of independent government in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the King or his representatives. They patterned their experiment after the Republican Statute of Rome: OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People, TO the People, and FROM the People, guided and governed only by the “Devine Providence over all Worldly Men!” The Unanimous Declaration of the United Colonies, also known as The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) clarifies the Natural Republican State. Individuals wrote a third of the colonial documents in Latin and is reliant upon a specific understanding of the rules of grammar, a “functional literacy” and the period under which the individual wrote the document. To understand the ramifications of a document, one must recognize that the original Latin was gender-based. It is male-singular or feminine-plural gender sensitive.[782]

Between 1774 and 1812, the American colonists established a Republican Form and Style of government. The word Form refers to the logistical framework, such as a constitution whereas the word Style refers to the “operation” of that government – how the government applies the written law. People refer to this process as The Flow of Government. A government that is “Republican in Form and Style” is incompatible with the candid world’s top down democracies and republics “because the flow of government is variable (as in alternating current), or “plenary” at each Deputy level, each of which serves as a “check and balance” against each other at the Deputy level.” A Deputy’s position, unlike the lifetime members in the current legislative branch, is a temporary arrangement. The People function as the ultimate “check” against their Deputies, during an election and through a jury of peers.[783]

Individuals must understand some major tenants of Statute law, corporate-style governments utilize the Latin male-singular-gender provisions wherein the “flow of government” is managerial, from the top down, emanating from the elite ruling class down, using an “Enumerated Charter.” A government using Latin feminine-gender-plural terms alters the “flow of government” from the bottom, the people. It is truly a government OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People, TO the People, and FROM the People.[784]

People are familiar with the following types of government: Democracy is a top down, single “flow” government wherein a “free” elite class and the majority rules. A Republic is also a top down single “flow,” ruled by King, Queen or a dictator, ostensibly designed to meet the needs of all men. There is little, if any difference, between a Corporate Democracy and a Corporate Republic. They both manage the masses from the top down. A Republican form of government means “Of, By, For, From, and To all Men (People).” The “flow” is plural and “plenary” wherein law prohibits corporate influences from influencing the natural Family and everyone is free. In a Republican form of government, there are “natural checks and balances.” The current Hickey & Company version of the Constitution, today’s “Law of the Land,” guarantees only a republican Form of government but abandons the Republican Style of government, a practice that certain colonials “perfected” and initiated in 1787-1790.[785]

The colonists intended to establish “National Republican Style” of the government as a perpetual protection “against the natural known ...corporate enemies from within.” Therefore, they created a “Republican in Form” through what they called the original American Instrumentations of Government, something that future generations erroneously call a “Constitution” because of the powerful influence of the European Royal Family Confederate Congress University Publishing House Company and their dominion over our Schools, Churches, and public medias. By this control, they have created a “functionally illiterate society.” The colonists created a Republican form and style of government with the “flow of government extending to and from all of the People.” More importantly, all current “State Enabling Legislation (Acts),” necessitate a Republican form of government that has “equal footing with the original (American Republican Colonial) States” in every detail. Keep in mind that “The People,” the early United American Colonies were the states, individually, or as a collective group through the men who they temporarily appointed as their Deputies who functioned precisely and according to their “non- enumerated Declarations.”[786]

Deputies, not representatives or senators, oversaw the government at the local level and at the new “Perfected National Supreme Republican level.” Further, the colonists described the instrumentality as The Supreme Law of the People, not the law of the Land (culture). The “Deputies,” responsible ethical individuals, performed “specific duties” for the People and were accountable to the People.

The Unanimous Declaration of the United Colonies, July 4, 1776

Establishment historians, as taught in all government schools and in privately endowed universities, inaccurately portray historical events and the people who participated in the crucial circumstances. The two political factions functioned when the founders drafted the Declaration of Independence, a document that defends the rights of everyone, including the common person. However, British loyalists and their numerous agents opposed extending rights to the American minority, many of whom were farmers, who were struggling for their emancipation from the tyrannies of British rule. Obviously, given that slavery and other cruelties continued to exist, despite the rhetoric of equality, certain people within the American elite establishment had an ulterior agenda wholly detrimental to the ideals of freedom for everyone. These elite traitors remained faithful to the British Crown and the European Royal Family. After the Revolutionary War, these traitors, many of them attorneys, reinitiated their efforts to seized control of the culture after the deputies presented the Unanimous Declaration of the United Colonies on July 4, 1776. The traitors, on behalf of the King, created the Articles of Confederation in order to undermine the Unanimous Declaration of the United Colonies and prevent the distribution and adoption of the ideals of a natural Republican Form and Style of government. If this style of government were successful in America, nations throughout the world would demand it. That would end royalty and elitism everywhere.[787]

The people attending the Constitutional Convention purportedly only intended to modify the Articles of Confederation, a document the drafters completed on November 15, 1777. The states had ratified it by March 1, 1781. The intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one.

Financing the First Revolution, 1775-1783

One of the biggest provocations for the Revolutionary War had been the Duties in American Colonies Act 1765 or the Stamp Act of 1765. Following Britain’s very expensive triumph (doubled their national debt) in the French and Indian War (1756–1763), the British Parliament retained their military forces in America. Members of Parliament did not recall them, as their friends and officers would be without a military job because the British population would justifiably oppose a standing army. Parliament imposed

a direct tax on the colonies, which required the residents to use specially stamped or embossed paper produced in England for all of the colony’s printed materials including legal documents, newspapers, magazines and other items. The colonists had to use British currency to pay for this stamped paper rather than colonial currency. The British imposed this tax to help reimburse the expenses of 10,000 peacetime occupational soldiers in the North American colony.

Between 1776 and 1801, wealthy aristocrats, Henry Knox, a Freemason, Alexander Hamilton and Rufus King plotted to impose a monarchal government in America.[788] Robert Morris, Hamilton and the others had the ideological and financial support from a little known historical figure, a son of Portuguese Jewish parents, Haym Solomon (1740-1785) who was born in Lesno, Poland. His family had fled from the Spanish monarch; he lived in Poland and then toured Europe where he gained knowledge of finances and learned to speak several languages. In 1772, he ultimately arrived in England, and similar to many of his associates, from there he went to New York in about 1775, where he became a broker for foreign trade, and joined the Sons of Liberty, a group of merchants and traders who reportedly opposed British rule. The New York Tammany Society, initially called the Sons of Liberty, housed the minutes of its meetings in the New York Public Library.[789]

In 1776, during the war, German Hessians, mercenary soldiers, brokered by Mayer A. Rothschild, and working for the English enemies, accused Solomon of spying. The British incarcerated him. Because he could speak German fluently, a Hessian General employed his services as an interpreter. After numerous other legal issues and at least two arrests by the British, the story is that he managed to buy his freedom from the guards with some hidden gold coins.[790] Just because Solomon could speak German, he avoided execution by the British, and lent large sums of money to the Americans to finance a war largely promoted by leaders who happened to be Freemasons, does not prove a connection between Mayer A. Rothschild and Haym Solomon.

Solomon moved to Philadelphia where he helped found a large synagogue, and where he met George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris who soon relied on Solomon and his financial resources. There are numerous notes in Morris’ diary referring to Solomon and his valuable assistance. Solomon brokered several loans totaling about $700,000, with bankers in France and Holland. He even offered interest-free loans to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. He fell ill with tuberculosis at the end of the war while trying unsuccessfully to obtain repayment for his efforts. He died in 1785, leaving a pregnant wife and three children.[791]

When Washington had needed money to pay his soldiers, the international bankers loaned him money on the condition that he appoint Hamilton as the first Treasury Secretary. Washington’s soldiers were about to mutiny as they had not been paid and lacked essential supplies, so he sent a messenger to Solomon in Philadelphia to request a loan of $400,000 to pay and provide supplies for his troops. Solomon was at the synagogue when the messenger arrived. Solomon had a hurried conference with his friends. They left the synagogue and soon returned with the requested funds. There is speculation that Solomon contributed $240,000 to the total amount of the loan. Hamilton and Washington agreed to establish a central bank at the end of the war.[792]

Jewish financiers funded the American Revolution as well as the war people mistakenly refer to as the Civil War. Haym Solomon financed the Revolutionary War while Seligman Brothers and Speyer & Company financed the North and Frédéric Emile d’Erlanger financed the South. Kuhn Loeb and Company financed the development of the railroad industry. Haym Solomon, highly regarded as a hero, may have been a Rothschild agent, based solely on circumstantial evidence. If he was associated with Rothschild, then the House of Rothschild financed both sides of the American Revolution. International bankers avoid allegiances to any country. However, they will finance any government that accommodates the bankers

who make huge profits through warfare. Ultimately, they seek to annihilate all governments in order to establish their own global governance. Financing war accomplishes the destabilization of a country and accrues great indebtedness, payable to the Rothschilds.[793]

The Second Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, with The Ten Articles, released the U.S. from British control, who then felt threatened by the potential commercial rivalry by American business interests. American merchants sought profitable trade opportunities other than with England. The pioneer voyage of the Empress of China, a privateer refitted for commerce, captained by John Green, left for China on February 22, 1784 and returned to New York on May 11, 1785. A wealthy syndicate owned the ship, some of the richest men in the nation, including Morris who was active in slave trading and auctioneering, war profiteering and was an investor in a plantation. He was in the Pennsylvania Assembly and was a U.S. Senator (1789-1795) during which time he continued his private business endeavors. He voted against the Congressional motion for independence on July 1, 1776. On March 12, 1791, he contracted with Massachusetts to purchase thousands of acres in Western New York for $333,333.

America had borrowed money from bankers in Spain, France, Holland and private German interests that amounted to $77.1 million. The debt was comprised of foreign debt that totaled $11.7 million, federal debt that totaled $40.4 million and state debt was $25 million. Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume all of the state debts.[794] He wrote, “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”[795] The national debt, due to unpaid interest, increased after the war ended. It was a sizeable debt and there were unresolved factors between the states and the Union.[796] Hamilton said, “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.”[797]

George Hammond, the first British Ambassador to the U.S. (1791-1795), criticized the French who may have encouraged the American “discontents” to rebel against the British.[798] He reported to his superior that he personally “was doing everything in his power to bring about a breach between France and the United States.”[799] Secret conversations transpired between Hamilton and Hammond who favored a limited monarchy. In 1793, after the successful revolution, William Willcocks was a Hamilton representative and always added, “God bless the colonies” under his signature. Oliver Wolcott Jr., a Yale graduate and Treasury Secretary (1795-1800) said that a single despot was a refuge from “the despotism of the many.” He favored the autocratic government that Rufus King and Henry Knox advocated.[800]

John Beckley, the Clerk of the House, was Jefferson’s loyal informant. He told Jefferson that while he was in New York in 1793, Sir John Temple showed him a letter from Sir Gregory Page Turner, a Member of Parliament, which confirmed that Britain considered Hamilton, King, and William L. Smith, of Charleston, South Carolina, as the main supporters of British interests in America. Hamilton, rather than Hammond, was their most effective minister. Turner counseled these men to attempt to change the government. If they met failure and the anti-Federalists assumed power, they could have asylum in England. Beckley said that Foreign Secretary William Grenville also confirmed this in a letter.[801] According to the Columbian Sentinel, May 15, 1793, in Charleston, men belonging to the aristocratic St. George Society (the English founded it in 1733) drank toasts to Britain’s King. Charles C. Pinckney, a Federalist and Constitutional delegate from South Carolina, didn’t approve of Smith’s monarchical inclinations, as noted in Pinckney’s letter to his brother, Thomas, October 5, 1794, in the Pinckney Papers in the Library of Congress.[802]

The Confederate Congress and
The University Publishing House Company of New York

During the foundational years of the country, two separate opposing governmental entities, simultaneously introduced and enacted policies and legislation. They were the (1) American Continental Republican Congress Colonial deputies of Philadelphia and (2) the Confederate Congress and its University Publishing House Company representatives of New York. People referred to the Confederate Congress as “The Royal Company.” Currently, these entities, under different names, still exist. The deputies of the American Continental Republican Congress convened two emergency Conventions (1776 and 1787) in Philadelphia. Patriots drove The Royal Company “underground” numerous times during the course of history.[803]

The Confederate Congress and University Company of New York mandates, through licensing and bureaucratic regulations, that all city, county and state governments, even churches, and other artificial entities, incorporate (become corporations). Accordingly, through legalistic machinations, they have created a corporate culture. The privately owned Confederate political state, the top corporation, controls all corporations and may then take over all corporate assets or resources. The original colonial government wanted to apply their Republican style of government to everyone. However, certain individuals instituted a Confederate America whose laws and constitution would only benefit whites. These individuals drafted the Articles of Royal Confederate Congress, which soon eradicated the original individual Colonial Declarations of the Republican government. Those declarations abolished every form of slavery, a tyranny that the corporate state tolerated, not only for the profit but also for the cheap labor. People fought the American Revolution to end the despotic corporate influence.[804]

The physical war ended with America as the victor but another subtle war began between the colonists and citizens and a sophisticated assemblage of academics who were associated with the underground Confederate Congress and its University Publishing House Company of New York. These “federal agents,” actually British agents, referred to themselves as “The United States,” seemingly a benign designation, still extant today. While Americans appeared to win the bloody revolution, we must ask who really won – who is in charge today? Is it the British corporate model or the yeoman farmers and the common person? The King’s agents skillfully transformed the People’s government into a corporation in such an ingenious way that “hundreds of millions of people” exist under an illusion of freedom.[805]

The framers drafted the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the original Perfected National Declaration of American Republican government presented at the second Continental Convention. However, within thirty-eight years, the traitorous King’s agents “subjugated” the population under the King again. The members of the Congress in Philadelphia had established a government of, by, to, for and from the People by way of a Declaration from the People, in the form of the Declaration of Independence. This government was “Republican in form and in style.” Meanwhile, the Congress in New York, comprised of the King’s agents, were formulating a method of altering that Republican government into a “democratic/republic corporation” via a charter, something the King had executed numerous times. They called their deceptive charter a constitution.[806]

A Declaration, often referred to as a single statute, begins with an enacting clause “that identifies the individual(s) making the declaration and his/her/their sovereign authority in its singular purpose, and an integral part of the statute.” The drafter should include one or more paragraphs, beginning with the word “that” following the enacting clause. However, a constitution (corporate charter), typically with a preamble, is composed of several, perhaps dozens, of enumerated statutes for countless purposes. The preamble, usually very noble sounding, is not essential to the constitution, but defines the nature of the charter. In addition, a corporate charter has several “numbered and/or lettered statutes” for various “purposes,” which people call “articles, sections or sub-sections.” The format of the document determines “the difference between freedom and slavery for an entire nation of people.”[807]

The King’s federalist agents had their headquarters in New York, with agents placed throughout the colonies. They referred to themselves as the Confederate Congress & University Company of New York, otherwise known as the Royal Company of New York. Until 1813, all of the original documents of the Colonial American Republican Government – the Supreme National Republican Declaration (September 1787) and the Unanimous Declaration of the Republican States of the Colonies (July 4, 1776) were in the Declarative Format, like the Declaration of Independence. The King and his agents referred to them as the American Republican Freeman Letters.[808]

By the War of 1812, many of the founding fathers were elderly, feeble or dead. The British torched Washington DC and burned the American Colonial Archives Depositories in Arlington and Richmond. Librarians (British operatives) at the Confederate Congress library in New York burned selective documents. Speaking of British operatives, people may know some of today’s British operatives as Rhodes Scholars. Apparently, those librarians removed some of the documents out to the street and burned them with some pieces of furniture. The librarians retained the “transposed versions of the official American Colonial documents.” The University Press, Crown Press, and other private publishers associated with the Confederate Congress Code Publishing Houses published hundreds of editions of the burned documents and disseminated them around the country. British agents substituted the original “Colonial Declarations of Republican government” for the enumerated corporate constitution, thus removing the necessity for a public vote.[809]

Beginning in 1813, the Confederate Congress and its University Publishing House Company seized control of the government and replaced all of the original non-enumerated Declarations with “enumerated Constitutions” by substituting the word “That” with a capital Arabic numerical symbol, replacing semi- colons with commas, altering words and their order within the text. After the depository fires of 1812, agents re-named the colonies “states” and designated them as subservient to the Confederate Congress. British agents eliminated the perception of a “corporate-free Republican government through their deceptive substitution of the original documents. The elite, attempting to impose corporate control, intended to subvert the idea of a free people who governed from the bottom up from extending to the rest of the world. The European Royal Family and their bankers want to enforce a corporate model throughout the world by exploiting the trauma and tribulation of warfare.[810]

The people were largely unaware of the switch and the subtle power of corporations and still imagined that they were free sovereign citizens and that the government was accountable to them. Yet, the elite altered the government structure wherein they changed the original Senate and House of Deputies to the Senate and House of Representatives, supposedly two distinct legislative bodies. The Private University Publishing House, through their publications, reduced Colonial governments to “sovereign states” having certain “states’ rights” while abandoning all reference to “Sovereign Republican States” and reducing each entity to a “corporate subject status.” British warfare against the colonists, their homes and public building facilitated the transition.[811]

In 1845, top operatives in the Confederate Congress and University Company decided to produce an official version of the “United States Constitutions” because of the various versions and the lack of uniformity. Predictably, people not having a standard may have requested clarification to halt the confusion regarding the numerous versions of the very copies they had placed into circulation. This is what David Icke calls problem, reaction, solution. A government creates a problem that perplexes the population who then ask for a solution – one the government had already prepared but could never have imposed without the initial problem. Some of the Colonies had adopted statehood, modeling their state constitutions after the enumerated Confederate Congress version. The Congress and the Courts decided, because of the emergency, to create a “standard version.”[812]

The Bait and Switch Constitution

Sir William Hickey, Esq. and certain members of Congress created the 1846 version of “The Constitution for the American People” in a 400-page book allegedly embodying original American documents, which people supposedly rescued from the fire in 1812 with the addition of an enumerated Index. Hickey and friends filed this “Standard Version” with the Secretary of State James Buchanan (1845-1849) and the Court and a “select membership” of Congress adopted the new “constitution,” without a public vote, through a resolution and by their “volume purchase” of the Hickey constitution in February 1847. After the “Post Roads and Franking Act” of March 1847, the government distributed it to the public. At this time, members of Congress added the Twelve Articles (Charter) of Federal Appendages, called the Bill of Rights, as an “appendage” to the Hickey Constitution” and abandoned the original 1787 “National Republican Declaration” document that the Colonies ratified in 1789. Thereafter, the people ignorantly adopted the American “Constitution and Federal Appendages” without knowing that it was not an accurate copy of the original documents but rather the product of the Confederate Congress and University Company.[813]

In the front matter of William Hickey’s book, we read,

In the Senate of the United States, Thursday, February 18, 1847,

Resolved, That the secretary be directed to procure for these of the Senate two thousand copies of the authentic copy of the Constitution, with an analytical index, and compilation of other public documents, recently printed and placed in the hands of the members, provided the price shall not exceed the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents per copy.

Resolved, That ten thousand additional copies of the authentic copy of the Constitution, with an analytical index, etc., be preserved for the use of the Senate, provided they will be furnished at a deduction of twenty per cent, on the price above states.

Attest,
Asbury Dickens, Secretary[814]

Hickey’s new Constitution, with Articles of Confederate Appendages, and Index set a standard for the new state constitutions. The Confederate University B.A.R. Representatives managed the American government under the pretense that it was still the government of the people. Members of the Confederate Congress and University Publishing Company altered the laws, formulated educational and media materials, debased the laws of grammar to modify the laws.[815]

The People who participated in the Great American Experiment (1774-1812) attempted to utilize a Natural (National) Republican Government (of, by, from, to, for) through its operation (Style) and by its documents (in declarative Form). It differed from every other style of government operation. A Republic, Democracy, Anarchy, Monarchy, and Oligarchy are all corporate in nature and operation. Each of these employs a singular flow of government from the Ruler or the Ruling Class downward. Additionally, each of these types of governments composes their documents in an “enumerated” style like a Corporate Charter or “Constitution Form.” American citizens currently live under a Confederate system of government wherein certain people have violated our liberties through the “enumerated code” of a Constitution that William Hickey and his collaborators created in 1846 to take the place of the original declarative non-enumerated documents.[816]

The Constitution, a contract, functions as a list of enumerated independent statutes for a variety of purposes, whereas, a statute is a non-enumerated declaration, to denote a single purpose. State constitutions, originally non-enumerated documents, prohibit the amendment of an existing statute by their inclusion of the original title or enacting clause. State constitutions are supposed to be a single statute, declarative documents which initially equalized, all on an equal basis, the original fourteen colonies as Colonial Republican States. William Hickey converted the “original Perfected 1787 Supreme Republican

Declaration of the United American Colonies into a “Constitution Form.” Hickey and his collaborators changed the title, the enacting clause, into a “preamble.” They then placed an “enumerated Charter of Confederate Appendages & Index” at the end where, even then, a subservient dumbed down population would not immediately notice the alterations.[817]

In 1868, following the uncertainty and turmoil of warfare, conspirators added the “Federal Charter of Appendages” to William Hickey’s 1846 version of the “United States Constitution FOR the American People.” Additionally, schemers, with the Reconstruction Amendments, altered the legal status of blacks from “property” to what author Ricardo Johansson calls “free property” with the Fourteenth Amendment on July 9, 1868. Following the turmoil of the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s, plotters created more legislation under the guise of promoting racial equality.[818]

California became a state (corporation) on September 9, 1850, a branch of the federal Corporation, which had adopted Hickey’s Constitution of the United States of America in 1847 as the Constitution OF the United States with the District of Columbia Organic Act enacted on February 21, 1871. Officials designed California’s constitution as an enumerated corporate contract. Presumably, officials in every state that entered the Union after 1847 devised the same type of corporate contract. To facilitate the process, select lawyers from Boston and New York, associated with the Confederate Congress and University Company, assisted the Convention Delegates in the territories to draft “Corporate state Constitutions” instead of “Republican State Declarations.” The Convention Delegates believed they had devised a “Constitution framework” based on a “Republican in Form.” Form refers to a document as the basis for a government while style refers to the operation of that said government, which may be incompatible with the document. Other states utilized the model that the delegates, with help from the east, used in 1849 in California. People knew this as “The California Code.”[819]

Restoration of a Republican Form and Style of Government

It is possible, with education and understanding, for the people to restore the original Declarative (Republican) Form and Style of government but cannot include the subsequent amendments, the enumerated Charters of Appendage or the constitutions that the states have adopted since 1969. It is also essential to know and understand THE FIVE MAIN GRAMMAR USEAGES OF THE ENGLISH VOCABULARY. These five elements are Spelling, Word Order, Punctuation, Capitalisis, and Signs & Symbols (to include Arabic Numeral Symbols). When an individual applies one or more of these main usages to our written laws, he has created A STATUTORY AMENDMENT. Hence, THE LAW OF GRAMMAR GOVERNS THE WRITTEN LAW OF STATUTE. If the person substitutes a capital or small Arabic Numeral Symbol for the declarative word “That” in any statute, he has created an AMENDMENT to the original statute.[820]

A lawyer, member of Congress, or collaborator may transpose a “Declaration (A Statute),” such as the Declaration of Independence, into an enumerated “Corporate Constitution” for “other purposes.” Therefore, the People, such as a group of patriots, must decide whether they want to retain the Corporate Representative Style and Form of Government or establish a Supreme National Republican Style and Form using a Deputy system rather than a representative (unrestricted power of attorney). The corporate or federal system that treacherous men imposed upon us is diametrically opposed to the original Colonial Declarations of Republican Government. From 1774 to 1812, in the American Colonial Republican example, the individual People, permanent entities, comprised “The State.” A Union or Con-Federation of men, based on amendable documents, cannot co-exist indefinitely.[821]

It is possible for the American People to resurrect their existing original Colonial Supreme National Republican Form and Style of Government. If the People, having the creative authority, desire a

Republican Form, the author of the document needs to identify all of the People in the document’s Enacting Clause, an integral part of the statute and is NOT a mere preamble to a “constitution.”[822] The objective of an enacting clause at the beginning of any piece of legislation is to declare the authority associated with the act and identify it as an act of legislation. For instance, in Illinois, where I live, officials use the phrase “Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly.”[823]

The original fourteen American Colonial Declaration “Enacting Clauses” comprise “the ‘Enacting Clause of Purpose’ which is essentially the main body of the Unanimous Declaration of 4 July 1776,” a single Statute document. These emanated, to a certain degree, from the 1774 Virginia Plan drafted by James Madison for the Virginia delegates and later presented on May 29, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The “Deputy Framers” authored the Unanimous Republican Declaration of July 4, 1776, which they later “perfected” in September 1787 using the same grammar form and style, referred to as the “Republican in Form” or “Letter Form.” These distinctive American Colonial Republican documents, known as the “The American Freeman Letters” clarified an innovative and experimental Republican-style government.[824]

The “Deputy Framers,” in The Enacting Clause, used the People as the authority who ordained and established this (Statute), embracing the defense of liberty, safety, and welfare of the National (natural) Independent Republican States of America as its primary objective by its established Deputies. We have here (1) the Authority: We, the People of these United Colonies; (2) the ends for which the More Perfect 1787 Supreme National Republican Statute; (3) the explicit ordaining of this Statute, including this introductory clause; (4) the Nation of Republican States for whom they created the document, the People of These United Colonies of America.[825]

When people collectively “declare something into being, like a government, they are identified in the Enacting Clause of that Declaration (A Statute) clarifying the authority issuing the declaration and its singular purpose. They are the creators of that government. They are the lawmakers and givers.” Conversely, a preamble introduces a corporate constitution and is separate from the enumerated statutes within the document. Even if the drafters of the preamble mention the people, it merely sustains the illusion that the people are important. A constitution with a preamble denotes a corporate/charter form of government that CEO and a Board of Directors manages without regard to the “The People. The drafters or our current corporate form of government used the phrase “We the People” to provide the illusion that the People are a dominant factor in the decision making process.[826]

“The only distinction between this Perfected 1787 Colonial Republican Statute and the individual fourteen Colonial Statutes in place from 1774 to 1787 is the coined word Nation (National).” This helps to clarify why the Deputies made no additional oath at the new Perfected National Seat of Government. Their previous oath(s) were still as applicable under their respective National Seats as they had been in their individual respective Colonial Seat of their residence. The oath of the seat and oath of fidelity pertained to every Colonial Deputy who was now functioning in this Natural (National) Republican plenary system. The oaths were valid irrespective of his temporary appointment level. “The individual Colonial Statute, and the new Supreme National Republican Statute, placed limitations of action only upon the Seat of the temporary Deputies identified therein.”[827]

The top corporate officers, now posing as the legitimate American government, though extremely well compensated are not professional, the best qualified, and they certainly have not demonstrated a high degree of integrity. These imposters, supposedly working for the Public Good, have not conformed to the Will of the People since 1777.[828]

The Jay Treaty

The Jay Treaty

American relations with Britain did not improve following the Revolutionary War. British exports flooded the American market while British trade restrictions and tariffs blocked American exports. Britain and their bankers still attempted to dictate terms and who should be paying war reparations. Britain maintained control of northern forts in the Northwest Territory (the area west of Pennsylvania). They should have surrendered them according to the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Yet, thirteen years later, they are still occupying the forts, after America supposedly won the war but Britain was still acting dictatorial. Britain still seized naval and military supplies from neutral ships. James Madison suggested a trade war, sure to work given that the current warfare with France had debilitated Britain. Washington rejected that idea and sent John Jay, from a wealthy family of New York merchants, to Britain to negotiate a new treaty. The treaty demanded that Britain leave the northwestern posts; grant America “most favored nation” status, while America agreed to limit their commercial relations in the British West Indies.

Attorney John Jay, a leader in the Federalist Party and former ambassador to Spain and France, was the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789-1795). He was also the chief negotiator of The Jay Treaty, a document crafted by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton to resolve issues with Britain following the Revolutionary War that the Treaty of Paris of 1783 apparently failed to address or else the British simply ignored. Because Britain and France were engaged in warfare, British officials wanted to improve their relationship with America. Jefferson and his supporters opposed the Jay Treaty but the Senate ratified it by a two/thirds majority. The debate over the Jay Treaty led to the development of the nation’s “First Party System.” Officials in both countries signed Jay’s Treaty in November 1794, and both countries officially ratified it and it became effective on February 29, 1796.

According to the Jay Treaty, America, the winner of the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), agreed to pay reparations of £600,000 sterling to King George III, more than a decade after the war. The Senate, perhaps bribed by the British-serving Federalists, ratified the Jay Treaty during a secret session. The Senators ordered the newspapers no to publish the details of the treaty. However, Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published the facts, which resulted in a public outrage. In angered retaliation, members of Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so that federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for exposing corruption within the government.

President George Washington, in his support of the Senate and their ratification of the Jay Treaty, exercised Executive privilege, a practice that people can trace back to the English Crown Privilege.[829] Professor John Kozy wrote, “Executive privilege, deliberative process privilege, state secrets privilege, and public interest immunity are forms of English crown privilege. They are attributes of monarchial systems. All are derived from the common-law principle that the internal processes of the executive branch of government are immune from normal disclosure, and all are based on the belief that by guaranteeing confidentiality, the executive branch receives more candid advice than would be given if confidentiality were not assured. Such advice, it is claimed, results in better decisions for society as a whole, but not a jot of empirical evidence has ever been cited to support this claim. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite view that confidential advice results in decisions that produce horrid results for society.”[830]

In 1796, members of the House of Representatives requested John Jay’s negotiation documents regarding his discussions with British officials from President George Washington. However, the president denied their request explaining that the Senate had an exclusive responsibility in the ratification of treaties. Therefore, Washington decided that the House had no justifiable reason to evaluate the material.

Consequently, Washington supplied the documents to the Senate but refused to provide them to the House.

[831]

President Thomas Jefferson used the executive privilege precedent during Aaron Burr’s trial for treason in 1807. Burr wanted the court to compel Jefferson to supply Burr with his private letters regarding him. Chief Justice John Marshall, a leader of the Federalist Party and therefore a powerful advocate for a strong federal government, was Jefferson’s political adversary. Marshall, the architect of a strong Supreme Court, ruled that the Sixth Amendment did not exclude the president from providing the requested letters. Jefferson claimed that revelation of the document’s contents would jeopardize public safety. Marshall said that the court would make such decisions, not the president. Jefferson complied with

Marshall’s order but insisted that he was doing so voluntarily and not because of the authority of the court.

[832]

The Jay Treaty failed to resolve American complaints regarding neutral shipping rights and to obtain adequate compensation for the slaves the British seized during the Revolution, the reason so many Southerners objected to the treaty. Jefferson and Madison suspected that a closer commercial alliance and economic ties with Britain would ravage republicanism and strengthen the Federalists. However, George Washington and John Jay supported Hamilton’s newly created Federalist Party, which strongly supported the treaty. The Federalists, with Washington’s prestige, mobilized public opinion in favor of the treaty. The debates over the Treaty “transformed the Republican movement into a Republican party.”[833] Additionally, Jay failed to acquire just compensation for the slaves the British seized which provoked the South and encouraged their opposition.

The Whiskey Rebellion, Suppressing Opposition

Small farmers and others on the western edge of the United States opposed numerous policies advocated by the eastern-based national government that, in 1791, imposed an excise tax on whiskey. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton suggested this tax as part of his program to centralize the national debt following the Revolutionary War. When tax collectors attempted to collect this tax, violence finally erupted in July 1794 after a U.S. marshal, a stranger in the area, attempted to deliver officials writs to distillers who refused to pay the tax. Over five hundred armed men convened at the home of General John Neville, the local tax inspector. George Washington then sent a group of mediators to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels. The president, at the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton, also raised a militia force to quash the hostility. Before the military arrived, the insurrection had already subsided. However, the military arrested about twenty men who officials later acquitted.

This incident, which people refer to as the Whiskey Rebellion, revealed that the national government was prepared, willing and capable of using physical force to suppress violent opposition to its laws. Government officials still found it almost impossible to collect the whiskey excise tax. This event contributed to the development of political parties in the United States. President Thomas Jefferson repealed the whiskey tax in opposition to Hamilton’s Federalist Party, when his party assumed power in 1800.

In 1789, a new government began operations after the states ratified the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, the authority of the previous government, did not have the power to levy taxes but rather, had borrowed money to pay the government’s debts, which now totaled $54 million. Additionally, the states had accumulated $25 million of debt. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton sought to exploit the accrued debt through imposing a financial system like the British structure. He claimed it would encourage prosperity and national unity. In his Report on Public Credit, he advised Congress to combine the state and national liabilities into one debt that the federal government would fund. Congress approved Hamilton’s recommendations in June and July of 1790.

Consequently, the national government now needed a revenue source to satisfy the debts of the bondholders. By December 1790, Hamilton suggested that the national government increase import duties, the government’s principal source of revenue, as high as possible. He promoted the passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled liquors, the first tax imposed by the national government on all domestic merchandise, supposedly a luxury, according to Hamilton. Because people considered distilled liquor as a luxury, they would be less likely to oppose an excise tax on it. Of course, the social reformers supported what they viewed as a “sin tax” and hoped they could exploit the situation to raise public awareness about the negative effects of alcohol.

However, many people, especially in the west, drank whiskey. The small farmers augmented their income by trading or selling whiskey from their own stills. Farmers residing in the Appalachian Mountains

distilled their extra grain into whiskey for retail purposes, as it was easier to transport over the mountains than grain. With this whiskey tax, the western farmers could not be competitive with the eastern grain producers. Poorer people often received whiskey rather than wages so essentially the excise tax was an income tax that the wealthier easterners escaped. Small farmers, who distilled whiskey on a seasonal basis, opposed the tax because it gave unfair tax breaks to large eastern distillers. A distiller could pay a base fee or by the gallon. Large distillers produced more whiskey and chose to pay a flat fee, which equated to less tax per the gallon. Small western farmers usually paid a higher tax per gallon making them less competitive.

The majority of the residents, especially in the four southwestern counties, of the western frontier opposed legislation on the whiskey excise tax. Nevertheless, the legislators passed it, so several Pennsylvanians collaborated in order to repeal the law. Residents in four counties, Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland, joined in a meeting on July 27, 1791 in Fayette County to select delegates for a meeting in Pittsburgh in September 1791 in an attempt to repeal the law. The leaders of the Pittsburgh convention petitioned the Pennsylvania Assembly and the U.S House of Representatives, both in Philadelphia. The government reduced the tax in May 1792. On September 11, 1791, in Washington County, a gang of men tarred and feathered Robert Johnson, a new tax collector. Because of this and other similar incidences, government officials did not attempt to collect tax in 1791 and early 1792.

Small farmers in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia also opposed the whiskey excise. Officials did not collect the tax in Kentucky. In 1792, Hamilton wanted to send the military to suppress resistance in western North Carolina. In August 1792, people held a second convention in Pittsburgh to talk about the whiskey tax. Attendees included Albert Gallatin, a future Treasury Secretary. The Mingo Creek Association, a militant group, controlled the convention. Hamilton viewed the second Pittsburgh convention as a threat to the federal government’s authority. Washington and Hamilton were uncomfortable by the resistance in Pennsylvania, as the national capital was located there. Hamilton drafted a presidential proclamation condemning opposition to the excise laws. Washington signed the declaration on September 15, 1792, and had it published in numerous newspapers.

On August 1, 1794, approximately 7,000 protestors, primarily non-land owning poor people, congregated at Braddock’s Field, a historic battlefield. They did not own whiskey stills or otherwise participate in its production but were outraged over the excise tax, along with other economic injustices. Some of the protestors wanted to march on Pittsburgh and wage havoc on the wealthy who they felt had brought about this situation. David Bradford, deputy attorney-general for Washington County, Pennsylvania, praised the French Revolution and likened himself to Robespierre, a leader of the French Reign of Terror. The protestors wanted to separate themselves from the United States and ally with Spain or Britain.

On August 14, 1794, delegates from the six protesting counties convened a meeting at Parkinson’s Ferry where they drafted resolutions and appointed a committee to meet with a group of men that President Washington had sent. He wanted to stop an armed insurrection, maintain the government’s authority, all without alienating the public. While he had commissioners, Attorney General William Bradford, Justice Jasper Yeates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Senator James Ross, prepared to negotiate, he also raised the militia, as he had no confidence in the commissioners’ ability to squelch the rebellion and prevent violence. The Militia Act of 1792 required that a justice of the Supreme Court make certain that law enforcement was necessary.

On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson claimed that people in western Pennsylvania were in a state of rebellion. On August 7, Washington decided, with “the deepest regret,” to use the military to suppress the rebellion. He ordered the insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disband by September 1.

President Washington accused the “self-created societies” of initiating the rebellion in Pennsylvania,

which people refer to as the Whiskey Rebellion. People, even then, revered Washington and he would not have used military authority to put down the insurrection. Rather, other powers within the administration instigated the military action. However, the secret societies soon went underground. People, because of his position, would not attack Washington as a witch-hunter for making claims about secret societies. Nonetheless, they organized in America and waited for the right opportunity for a world-revolution. People able to withstand the constant “brainwashing” of the press understand the high stakes that are involved.[834]

The committee agreed to abide by the government’s directions and submit to its conditions. Some of the protestors supported that decision while others opposed it, especially those who felt they had no voice, the poor and the landless. Two of the representatives, William Findley and David Redick, were to meet Washington to stop the oncoming militia. Washington and Hamilton argued that if they turned the military back, violence would erupt. They called up a military force of 12,950 men using a draft to acquire that many people as relatively few men volunteered for the militia. However, the people in three Virginia counties and in some places in Maryland attempted to evade the draft. Therefore, Governor Thomas Sim Lee of Maryland sent 800 men to suppress the anti-draft riot in Hagerstown during which officials arrested about 150 people.

The military marched into western Pennsylvania in October 1794 and subdued the insurrection. Some of the leaders fled to the west for safety. Government officials investigated, arrested, and tried about twenty individuals. They convicted two men for treason – Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, who they sentenced to hang. Washington later pardoned both men. President Washington’s management of the Whiskey Rebellion brought approval from the majority of the population. This incident was evidence that the new national government was willing to crush strong opposition to its laws. President Washington viewed his actions as appropriate and successful. Officials still had a difficult time collecting the whiskey excise, a situation that contributed to the development of political parties. President Thomas Jefferson and his party repealed the whiskey tax in opposition to Hamilton’s Federalist Party.

Numerous people, using the Whiskey Rebellion as an example, have inquired about what kinds of protests are legitimate according to the Constitution. Christian G. Fritz, legal historian and a law professor claimed that although certain people had ratified the Constitution, there lacked a consensus about sovereignty. Federalists maintained that the government was sovereign because the people had established it. Therefore, protest actions, like those during the American Revolution, were now illegitimate. However, the Whiskey Rebels and their supporters argued that the war had established the people as a “collective sovereign.” Therefore, the people had a collective right to challenge the government through constitutional measures.

Historian Steven Boyd suggests that the government suppression during the Whiskey Rebellion aggressively persuaded anti-Federalist westerners to acquiesce and finally assent to the Constitution. Further, they believed the way to change the things in the government they opposed was through voting rather than by resisting the government. Federalists ultimately agreed to allow the people to participate more in the way officials governed them. Federalists still attempted to constrain freedom of speech that was critical of the government through the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, following the Whiskey Rebellion. However, the Federalists abandoned their efforts to inhibit and challenge the freedom of assembly and the right to petition.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment

When the architects of the constitution drafted that document they included the Title of Nobility Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that forbids the United States government

from granting titles of nobility and also restricts officials in the government from receiving gifts from foreign states without the consent of the U.S. Congress.

Astute colonists recognized that attorneys, also known as esquires, actually held a British Title of Nobility, and functioned as “Change Agents” for the British government. On January 18, 1810, to prohibit such incompatible influences, Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment, the “original” Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is dramatically different from the amendment Congress adopted as the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865. The senators amended the original Thirteenth Amendment, the “Title of Nobility,” on April 27, 1810. It reads, “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” A title of distinction included many of the American politicians who were lawyers who had passed the British bar. Thereafter, they held the title of Esquire, a designation just below the status of nobility. The Senate and the House passed the amendment and then sent it to the states for ratification.

On April 27, 1810, the Senate passed the amendment twenty-six to one. Afterward, the House passed it eighty-seven to three. On May 1, 1810, Congress approved the Titles of Nobility Amendment and submitted to the states. Federal officials sent the amendment to the States for ratification. Twelve of the required thirteen states ratified the amendment by December 10, 1812. Just before the thirteenth state could ratify the amendment, the War of 1812 erupted. Connecticut did not ratify it but posted it in The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut as a part of the U.S. Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835, an action that indicated ratification.

Maryland, December 25, 1810, Ratified
Kentucky, January 31, 1811, Ratified
Ohio, January 31, 1811, Ratified
Delaware, February 2, 1811, Ratified
Pennsylvania, February 6, 1811, Ratified
New Jersey, February 13, 1811, Ratified
Vermont, October 24, 1811, Ratified
Tennessee, November 21, 1811, Ratified
Georgia, November 22, 1811, Ratified
North Carolina, December 23, 1811, Ratified
Virginia, February 7, 1812, Ratified
Massachusetts, February 27, 1812, Ratified
New York, March 12, 1812, did not ratify
New Hampshire, December 9, 1812, Ratified Connecticut, May 13, 1814, did not ratify
Rhode Island, September 15, 1814, did not ratify
South Carolina, December 21, 1814, tabled the motion[835]

In early 1983, David Dodge, an archival research expert, and Tom Dunn, a former Baltimore police investigator were searching among the public records stored in the library in Belfast, Maine for evidence of government corruption. Unexpectedly, they found the “library’s oldest authentic copy” of the U.S. Constitution, printed in 1825. The document included a Thirteenth Amendment, no longer a part of the current Constitution, which prohibited lawyers from functioning in a government office.[836]

Dodge and Dunn conducted a seven-year, nationwide investigation for the truth regarding another, earlier version of the historical Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. If the Constitution Dodge and Dunn discovered in the Belfast Library was authentic, then conspirators illegally removed a ratified Amendment from the U.S. Constitution. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn found at least eighteen other copies in separate sources from ten different states and territories disclosing the “missing” Thirteenth Amendment covering a period from 1822 to 1860.[837]

In June 1991, Dodge discovered that the state of Virginia had ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, which made it a legal amendment to the Constitution. The evidence that Dodge and Dunn uncovered seems to indicate that the required number of states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment by 1819 and that conspirators removed the amendment, which restricted lawyers from functioning in government positions. Because the people never legally repealed the Amendment, it remains a law to this day. The implications of its removal and the successive deception perpetrated by the conspirators who were involved are enormous.[838]

Currently, when attorneys pass the Bar, they may use the title, Esquire. However, under the original Thirteenth Amendment, they cannot legally be American citizens and they are not entitled to occupy a position of trust or profit. Therefore, the laws that the Senate or House of Representatives have enacted or shall pass in the future, wherein there are members of the Bar, are invalid.

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or tills of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State.”[839]

“No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”[840]

King George III, who reigned from 1760 to 1820, allegedly established the International Bar Association (IBA) and granted authorization to the IBA to permit all of its members to use the title of Esquire. Apparently, all other Bar Associations are merely appendages to the IBA. The main objective of the original Thirteenth Amendment was to prohibit members of the IBA or other associations from holding office. The fundamental reason for the amendment was to recognize the equality of every citizen. We find the word “Honor” in the amendment, which, according to Webster’s Dictionary, at the time, described any individual “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another.” We currently witness this in the nation’s courtrooms wherein citizens and court officials refer to the judge as “Your Honor.” Additionally, people preface the names of members of Congress with the word “Honorable.” A lawyer may legally function as a judge but an ordinary citizen does not have that “honor” despite whatever capabilities he/she might possess in order to evaluate the issues in either a civil or a criminal case.[841]

Between 1810 and 1860, politicians, Change Agents, intricately connected to the international bankers, subtly discarded the Thirteenth Amendment without much, if any, opposition from the public. Northern businessmen, financed by the same international bankers, certainly depended upon the regular financial backing, which resulted in the success of their own profitable ventures. The remainder of the population,

without sufficient political representation, did not have the power, money or influence to address the issue of the Thirteenth Amendment if, in fact, they even knew or understood the implications of it. Politicians drafted and then adopted another Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865 to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude. The new amendment did not mention the prohibition against U.S. citizens representing foreign bankers or powers. It would be generations of deceptive financial manipulations, until 1933, before the proverbial hammer would come crushing down and every U.S. consumer, whether they recognized it or not, would finally fall prey to the pervasive parasitical system that would literally make them a wholly owned state asset or conversely, a disposable, useless eater.

The House of Representatives passed another Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 31, 1865. The Senate passed the Amendment on April 8, 1864. Congress adopted the amendment on December 6, 1865; On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward announced its official adoption, the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

However, in violation to the nobility in the Constitution, the British Crown has awarded titles to numerous Americans including the following, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Bill Gates, Rudi Giuliani, Billy Graham, Alan Greenspan, J. Edgar Hoover, Bob Hope, Henry Kissinger, Andre Previn, and Steven Spielberg. On March 28, 2000, administrators awarded Wesley Clark, U.S. General and NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe the position of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. In October 1998, King Juan Carlos, for educational work in Madrid, awarded Lynn Sandstedt, University Professor at the University of Northern Colorado, as a Knight of the Order of Alphonso the Wise. In 1993, H.M. Queen Elizabeth appointed Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, U.S. Military Generals, as Knights Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath (Honorary). H.M. Queen Elizabeth awarded George Bush, former U.S. President the Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath. Queen Elizabeth also appointed Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, as Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath. H.M. Queen Elizabeth appointed John Paul Getty II, U.S. a billionaire businessman and Caspar Weinberger, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, as Knights Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

Some Reasons for the War of 1812

Congress Refuses to Re-charter the Bank

There were numerous reasons for the War of 1812. Some people claim that Nathan Rothschild directed the British government to wage war against America because its government opted not to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. That may have been an issue but it certainly was not the primary reason. Other reasons include the original Thirteenth Amendment and the destruction of the founding documents – both of which facilitated a significant alteration of the government some of the founders initiated.

Congress Refuses to Re-charter the Bank

Many people, especially the state bankers, resented having what amounted to a central bank, under the control of foreigners or their agents (the lawyers in Congress) even fearing that King George was a shareholder. Congress refused to re-charter the bank in 1811. Investors made about 8% profit per year during the twenty years. The federal government cleared $600,000 from its investment. However, people were very concerned about the bank controlling the government so they allowed the charter to expire. Just before the War of 1812 began, U.S. officials returned subscriptions to the British investors. Stephen Girard was one of the major domestic investors.[842] By 1811, the states chartered over 120 banks, some even began issuing their own currency. In retaliation, the federal government resorted to demanding

specie payments in 1817.[843]

Allegedly, the First Bank of the United States was well-managed and paid good dividends. However, it refused to accept state bank notes that were not redeemable in specie. Agrarian opponents helped to defeat the re-chartering of the bank, despite the support that President Madison’s administration gave it. The bank concluded its affairs and repaid its shareholders. By the end of the War of 1812 (February 18, 1815), the financial system of the country was in chaos.

David Parish, a business partner of Nathan Rothschild’s since 1806, underwrote one of the loans that allowed the U.S. to fight the War of 1812. Parish made lots of money during the Napoleonic era after Napoleon Bonaparte, a Freemason, had seized power during the Coup on May 18, 1803. Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, also known as the Abbé Sieyès, assisted Bonaparte who returned as a war hero from the Middle East. Sieyès was part of the Illuminati through the Jacobin Club. He wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.

France was bankrupt by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, which was a series of conflicts that lasted from 1803 until 1815. However, these wars were really a continuation of the French Revolution that began in 1789, a war that revolutionized the way that wars were fought which included the concept of collective (for the sake of the whole country) conscription. France conquered most of Europe. However, they were not able to conquer Russia. The war destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and Spain’s domination began to dissipate, which inspired nationalistic revolts in its colonies. Because France was economically bankrupt at the end of this period of continual warfare, the British Empire was the dominate world power. Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo on June 18, 1815 resulted in the Treaty of Paris.

President Jefferson enacted the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts. Yet, as soon as the St. Lawrence froze over, American farmers crossed with their sleighs to trade with the British Army Commissariat Department. David Parish was a German-born land developer of the St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties. He obtained immunity for his incipient ironworks at Rossie. Parish was an international financial adventurer during the Napoleonic era. He was born in Hamburg, Germany in late 1778. His English grandfather made money in the mercantile business by transferring operations from Scotland to Hamburg. David Parish’s career began when he established an Antwerp commercial house by “the favor of Bishop Talleyrand.”[844]

Napoleon’s foreign minister, Talleyrand, allowed Parish to operate and amass a fortune. Parish went to Philadelphia in 1806 as a U.S. agent for a syndicate formed “to transfer a large quantity of bullion belonging to the King of Spain from Mexico to Napoleon’s coffers in Paris.”[845] Parish “acted as the American agent of the fabulously lucrative Spanish colonial bullion trade, which was conducted with the connivance of the English government, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the King of Spain.”[846] Baring Brothers of London directed the Royal Navy to allow the gold shipment in neutral U.S. ships. By the summer of 1808, the bullion transfer was completed and Parish received one quarter of the syndicate’s profit, or $1,000,000. He stayed in the United States.[847] His wealthy father and his married sisters and other family members all lived very comfortably in England. He maintained his close alliance to the Barings of London. Parish, Girard and Astor arranged a Swiss loan of $16,000,000 for Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin to pay for the war.[848]

Governor Morris convinced David Parish to purchase a large tract of land in northern New York. Morris had met David’s father, John in Antwerp in 1798. Morris, a land speculator, persuaded David to purchase the whole township of Ogdensburg with many hundreds of acres in the vicinity for which he paid about $2 per acre. He built a huge mansion at Ogdensburg, the Red Villa, designed by Renée, the French architect, who Parish brought over in 1811.[849] Parish paid Morris $363,000 for the land and began developing it by laying out the towns of Rossie and Parishville. He built a church, gristmill, sawmill and distillery in

addition to roads leading to other settlements.[850] In 1809, people discovered a deposit of iron at Rossie. Parish went to Pennsylvania in 1812 to seek advice on the production of iron ore. He hired William Benbow, an ironmaster from England and then proceeded to build the first blast furnace in Northern New York. For Parish and his associates, the war did not interfere with their business objectives. The Englishmen from Canada regularly dined with Parish.[851] In the summer of 1816, David Parish would return to Europe and join a new banking firm in Vienna, a firm that ultimately failed in 1825 during a Rothschild-orchestrated financial crisis. Parish, distressed over his financial losses, jumped into the Danube on April 27, 1826,[852] He had helped to establish the Vienna bank with “the blessing of Count Metternich.”[853]

At the beginning of the War of 1812, the government offered war bonds to raise the $16 million to finance the war and repay the French loan. By February, the Treasury had only sold about $6 million. It finally sold the balance to John Jacob Astor, born Johann Jakob Astor (1763-1848) of New York, Stephen Girard, and David Parish, a Hamburg native. They bought the bonds with their own and borrowed money and then profitably re-sold them to business contacts. Astor, who would become a director of the Second Bank of the United States, and Girard were very successful merchants with an extensive list of business contacts. Consequently, this venture was extremely lucrative. They had purchased the $10 million block for forty cents on the dollar and sold it for eighty-two cents for a $4.2 million profit.[854]

John Jacob Astor, born in Walldorf, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, learned English when he worked for his brother in London. In 1784, he emigrated from London with $200 to work for another brother in New York. Bad weather forced the ship he was on to take harbor in Chesapeake Bay where heavy ice locked it in for two months. During that time, he learned about the fur trading business from a fellow passenger. By the spring thaw, he decided to become a fur trader and went to work for Hayman Levy. Ultimately, he also engaged in mercantile trading, real estate speculation, and opium trading. From his opium profits, he purchased huge tracts of land in and around New York City, where his son and grandson erected tenement buildings. He operated in the Pacific Northwest and sold furs in the U.S. and the Orient. He supplied the Indians with sufficient liquor to make them more amenable to his business demands.[855]

By 1788, Astor was the Master of the Holland Lodge No. 8 in New York City, a lodge with ties to the Illuminati. He apparently had some special connections with the Brits as he also made a fortune selling opium into China in association with Britain’s East India Company. Baring Brothers was a vehicle for the opium trade with Astor in New York and a network in Philadelphia, Boston and other cities. Astor leveraged his drug profits into real estate in Manhattan, which laid the foundation for one of America’s largest fortunes.[856] President Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Gallatin later allowed Astor to evade the embargo imposed on ships in order to get his furs to England.

By the time, Astor had moved to London, the Bavarian government had banned the Illuminati but members had already introduced the craft to others who then took it to America. Thomas Jefferson,[857] Albert Gallatin, George Clinton, and Astor allegedly were all members of the Illuminati, a fellowship that promoted an allegedly compassionate dictatorship by illustrious people.[858] Low-level members of most organizations have little knowledge of the objectives of the top leaders.

Philadelphia resident Stephen Girard made his fortune trading slaves and opium. He was a pilot, the individual on a ship who was in charge of trading. When China banned the British from smuggling opium into the country, Girard and other Americans took over the trade. Baring Brothers initially financed Girard and he became one of America’s richest men. When he put up half of the $16 million needed to finance the War of 1812, he charged 10% commission.[859] Baring Brothers financed the opium traffic beginning in 1783 and maintained a close association with the prominent Boston families engaged in that trade. John Murray Forbes was a Barings agent, a position earlier occupied by Girard, the father of the

first American on the Hong Shang board.[860]

The New York stock exchange had among its thirty-six founders in 1792 – Isaac Gomez, Benjamin Seixas, andEphraimHart.[861] Beforeastockexchangewasestablished,peopleboughtandsoldamongthemselves. Government bonds made up about a third of the securities traded between 1790 and 1817. However, the war interrupted the speculative activity. The government had to issue bonds in order to pay for the war. When the Brits pulled their money out of the country to invest in the war efforts against Napoleon, it became clear just how many investments were foreign. In 1812, stocks were available for four new banks in addition to stocks for infrastructure improvements, like the Erie Canal and maritime insurance companies.[862]

With the closure of the Bank of the United States (1812), people, trying to make easy money began speculating. Bank proponents, like Girard and Astor, urged Congress to create the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Parish led the movement for chartering the Second Bank of the United States.[863] Girard had purchased most of the stock as well as the building of the Philadelphia branch of the First Bank of the United States and named it the Bank of Stephen Girard. He invested $3 million in the Second Bank of the United States as soon as Congress created it, which made him one of the biggest investors.

The second bank was larger and had more credibility with investors. Officials capitalized the bank with $35 million with the federal government subscribing to 20%, $7 million. According to the new charter, the president could appoint five of the twenty-five directors. British investors and bankers returned to take advantage of yet another investment opportunity. To encourage investment, the government permitted individuals to buy shares with government bonds. State-chartered banks still resented what seemed like a central bank that could establish branches in every state. The central bank accumulated state bank notes and then demanded specie for them – a nice tradeoff and a vehicle for accumulating gold or silver. The state banks viewed this as an affront to their ability to create their own notes and coin their own money.[864] Congress chartered the new bank for twenty years. After two bank presidents, officials appointed Nicholas Biddle as president. State banks and frontiersmen criticized the bank as it catered to the Eastern commercial classes.

The Destruction of Documents

Britain waged the War of 1812 against the colonies in order to destroy the original Colonial Declarations of Republican Government. In the American Colonial Archives Depository Fires, the British torched many of the depositories where the colonists had placed copies of those documents. The European Royal Family owned the New York Confederate Congress University Publishing Company, which they used, after the war, to transpose the original documents and substitute them with “enumerated Constitution Form” versions without requiring public vote. These actions transformed the Republican-style colonies into “political states.” The 1787 Northwest Territorial Ordinance (Compact of the Confederate Congress of New York calling only itself and its “representatives” individually and collectively “The United States”) was also an enumerated Constitution as was the 1777 Articles of Confederation.[865]

During the War of 1812, the British torched the buildings that housed the original Colonial and National documents that served as the foundation of the government from 1774 to 1812. The only document that survived the “fire in the archives” was the Unanimous Colonial Declaration of July 4, 1776. The New York Confederate Congress and University Company library, now known as the New York Public Library, conveniently supplied the revised documents and records.[866] The New York Public Library holds other interesting documents such as the meeting minutes of the elite New York Tammany Society, initially called the Sons of Liberty.

In 1812, during the confusion inherent in any war, treacherous individuals replaced the original American

Colonial “Declarative Republican Documents and Records” with the European Royal Family Charters disguised as “Enumerated Transition Constitutions.” They retained a majority of the Colonial Declaration language in order to create credibility for their counterfeit. The Royal University Publishing House Company previously prepared the replacement documents, a deception that traitorous people, since then, systematically and methodically concealed. Recently, with new research technology, documentary historians have discovered the enormous pretext perpetrated against the American People and the victims of constant warfare throughout the world. The corporation, calling itself “The United States,” complete with a “private constitution” has collaborated with a network of hundreds of other corporations while pretending to function as the original legitimate government.[867]

The “select members” who participated in this treasonous bait and switch of the original documents belonged to the New York Confederate Congress University Legislative Council. Individuals elected these “select members” to American Congressional Seats or the elite appointed well-connected people as Judges. The majority of the individuals who seek political office currently receive their education at prestigious universities. The founders determined, as indicated in the original Thirteenth Amendment, that people who received a “degree of University” possessed a “Title of European Royal Family Nobility.”[868]

The Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Colonization