Chapter 22 The Ruling Elite: The Great American Republican Experiment, 1774-1812 The Albany Plan, an Early Model by Deanna Spingola

 

Chapter 22 The Ruling Elite: The Great American Republican Experiment, 1774-1812 The Albany Plan, an Early Model by Deanna Spingola

 

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