If Liberty Was the Object, Why Did They Give Us Centralism?

by Al Benson Jr.

The issue seemed clearer to some (but not all) in 1787. When the Constitution was presented for ratification in Virginia the issues were much better understood than they are today. Of course people back then had not had the dubious “benefit” of our government school system with its obfuscations and omittances regarding our history. It was pretty well understood in Virginia, as well as in other areas, that the issue was a strong federalism, or centralism, as opposed to a loose confederacy of state governments where states rights were to be the rule–the dreaded (by historians) Compact Theory!

In his speeches against ratification Patrick Henry noted that the delegates in Philadelphia had overstepped their bounds in that they had not been sent there with power to create a central government, but only to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, in light of the results of that convention it does seem that some went with other motives in mind. Henry warned the Virginia delegates that they were not to consider how they could increase trade nor how they could become a great nation, but rather how their liberty could be secured. Henry said, and quite accurately, “…for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” He made another prescient statement in this regard when he said: “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power today, you cannot retake it tomorrow, for tomorrow will never come for for that.” In light of the direction this government has gone in from 1787 until now, does any sane person wish to argue with Mr. Henry’s logic?

Author, economist and columnist Gary North wrote a book almost twenty years ago now called Political Polytheism which dealt with much of this. For starters he noted that: “…The Constitution removed Christian religious tests as the judicial requirement of the judges and officers of the new national government. That, in and of itself, delivered the republic into the hands of the humanists. Nothing else was necessary after that. From that point on the secularization of America was a mopping-up operation.” That’s a much different assessment than most of us have been fed regarding the Constitution, even in Christian circles, or might I say, especially in Christian circles? I have to admit that when I first saw North’s book and skimmed it, I was a little hesitant about his thesis. As the years have passed I have become much less so.

And he made another trenchant observation, one that many of us, myself included, had not even thought of at the time. I since have come to where I can see his logic. He said: “The sought-for Constitutional balance of the one and the many, apart from the Bible and Old Testament case laws, is unattainable.” In other words you cannot have the proper relationship between a central government and the state governments apart from Scripture. So the further this country departs from Scripture and God’s law the more impossible it will be for us to really do anything right, especially in the area of differing governmental jurisdictions. By the same token, the “checks and balances” we have been told will keep the different branches of the national government in their proper spheres won’t work either.

North also noted that: “Like Newton’s universe apart from God’s constant, active providence, the ‘balanced Constitution’ will eventually move toward centralized tyranny (the fear of the Anti-Federalists) or toward dissolution (the fear of the Federalists). Both movements took place in 1861-65.” The Anti-Federalists feared tyranny; the Federalists feared secession. North’s comments add a whole different perspective to the question of the Constitution and what it really says.

Back in August of 2004, Gary North wrote an article called Conspiracy In Philadelphia. He also wrote a book by the same name. He observed: “In 1787 the states, with one exception (Rhode Island) were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new constitution made all such oaths illegal for federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso vs. Watkins (1961). I told this story fifteen years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening.” Mr. North, like many of us over the years, has learned that the movers and shakers, the ruling elite, the country’s “other masters” will simply ignore what they do not want dealt with, and they press their lackeys in the “news” media to do the same, and the media bombards us with sports extravaganzas and “reality shows” to the point where we do not have the time or inclination for any serious reflection. If the truth can be out there and almost totally ignored by the general populace, Christians included, they don’t even have to bother shoving it down the “memory hole” anymore. Most people today will gaze at the plans for their own destruction and that of their kids–and yawn.

However, for the unusual few that may be concerned about the truth and how it might affect their children and grandchildren, Mr. North has posted his book Conspiracy In Philadelphia on the Internet, from which it can be downloaded. My son downloaded it for me and for a friend of mine at church. It can be found at http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf and I would encourage those who have genuine concerns about our “founding document” and its background to download North’s book and see what he has to say. Knowing about Mr. North, I am sure his analysis will be penetrating and worth your time.

Centralism Trumps “Checks and Balances”

by Al Benson

Well, we’ve just had an election and it looks to most people like the good guys won for a change. However, voters need to be discerning enough to realize that not all those who appear to be good guys (Republicans) really are. Some of them are no better than the Democratic socialists, the only difference being the party label. Remember that the first two Republican candidates for president in this country, John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, were both socialists in their worldviews even if they may not have officially belonged to any socialist ” Party.” You can check out the backgrounds of both of these individuals in the book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Now that we have a Republican majority in both houses Comrade Obama has stated that he will just take “executive action” in regard to making illegal immigrants part of the national culture. Will the checks and balances that are supposed to operate with our current Constitution be enough to stop him. Will Congress do what it should do or will Obama just continue to get away with his lawlessness? Most of us know the answer and it’s not pretty. Congress will fume and fuss and make great pontifications about who should do what and that will be it.

The checks and balances that one branch of government is supposed to employ under the Constitution to check the usurpations of another branch will amount to nothing. It’s all, as one Christian pastor once said–“meaningless drivel.” Always has been.

Interestingly, one of the most insightful of the Anti-Federalists in the beginning was Robert Yates, a judge from New York who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. At some point Judge Yates withdrew because he felt the convention was exceeding the instructions it had been given. Yates later wrote as “Brutus” about the debates over the Constitution. Given that he had expertise as a judge he claimed that the Supreme Court was destined to become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching, and his insight in this area has proven correct.

As “Brutus,” he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being “corrected by any power above them.” Who is there out there that will correct them regarding their farcial ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Where are the checks and balances in this situation? If any are present they are hidden under the political rug, never to be seen. Yates thought that the power the Court would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law. Gee, when has that ever happened? (Let us count the times).

That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the “spirit” of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the “decisions” the Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns that Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns could have been labeled as optimistic, because in his day, he could have had no possible concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution had really said.

I can recall author and columnist, the late Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court had found many “enumerated penumbras” in the Constitution that justified abortion, the murder of unborn babies. Many folks will ask “what’s a penumbra?” Good question. For want of being able to explain it legally, I will note that it is nothing more than the judicial version of “seeing through a glass darkly.” The lawyers see “rights” there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. So there are no real checks and balances in play regarding the Supreme Court. It is truly a law unto itself.

Back in 2008, Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called Nathaniel Macon and The Way Things Should Be in which he dealt with the career of Nathaniel Macon, the man that Macon, Georgia was named after. Macon and others in his family were quite discerning. He served with North Carolina troops in the War for Independence. Dr. Wilson noted of him that: “He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting…In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined. It is noteworthy that his brother, John, voted against ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in both conventions of the sovereign people of North Carolina to consider that question; and that our State did not ratify until the first ten amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were in place to limit the federal government.” And he commented on the new government, saying “As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of ‘good government’ began to turn the government into a centralized power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress.” However, Dr. Wilson noted that “By the end of his life Macon had realized that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use ‘nullification,’ state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told his friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession–…” These folks had it figured out by the 1830s that the Constitution was not going to work because no one was staying within the sphere of authority that was delegated to them. The checks and balances that were supposed to keep everyone where they belonged were just not being practiced. Each branch of the new government was doing what it wanted to do with no resistance from the other branches save a little breast-beating. It was only to get worse during the Lincoln administration, and worse yet during the “reconstruction” period, when Congress basically just did whatever they wanted. Johnson vetoed their indiscretions but they overrode that while the Supreme Court did little. Now we have a president (a would-be dictator for life if he could get away with it) who doesn’t even bother to consult Congress anymore. He just issues “executive orders” and rules like a Muslim potentate, so where are the checks and balances?

It’s all rhetoric, folks, that’s all it is. We have been lied to by so many for so long about so much, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if we saw it floating amongst all the political swill out there.

Three years ago, Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia did a series in six parts called What Is States Rights? which you can still find on the Internet. Check out the website for the Southern Party of Georgia and read his comments. If that one is gone you can still find these articles on the League of the South website, probably in their archive. He observed: “In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it…let me emphasize…REPLACE IT…with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me emphasize what this means for the concept of States Rights…By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights.”

There’s a lot more to all this and I would encourage everyone to check out Mike’s articles and see what he has to say. You can bet the farm that you will never get this material from what passes for history books today.

Was Nationalism Sold To the Country As Federalism?

by Al Benson Jr.

It seems that, under the Articles of Confederation, there were states rights, as each state was considered sovereign and independent. However, with the ratification of the new constitution, that seems to have disappeared. Historian Clarence Carson has noted that, regarding the Articles of Confederation: “This bent, or tradition can be traced to many sources. Americans were, above all, a people of the book–the written word–the Bible. There was the Puritan idea, too, of the Covenant, an agreement between man and man and between man and God…Colonists had drawn their own political agreements, such as the Mayflower Compact and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut…Once the colonies had broken away from England, the only historical allegiances that remained were to the states and localities…At any rate, there should be no doubt that the government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was brought into being by the states.”

Some delegates saw the new Constitution as potentially tyrannical and refused to sign it. It seems that statesmen in those days had a far clearer view of things than do our present politicians, who I will not dignify by calling them statesmen.

George Mason of Virginia was unwilling to sign. The major objection was that the new document did not contain a bill of rights and there were objections in several state conventions to ratification being enacted too hastily without such being made part of the document. Patrick Henry argued, and rightfully so, in the light of history, that a specific bill of rights was essential. He observed that governments regularly and automatically assumed powers that were not prohibited to them. Can anyone in our day deny this truth? We have a Commander-in-Chief that regularly rules the country by executive fiat when he can’t get a usually-willing Congress to go along with something he has been instructed to ram through. And Congress never seems to complain. They sit back and let him do it. In our day the Executive Branch of government regularly usurps powers denied to it and the courts ignore the whole situation, giving the Executive and Legislative branches a wink and a nod as our rights are stolen. So much for checks and balances–another bill of goods we have been sold.

Added to all this was the continuing problem of differing views of the Constitution, which seems to have been a major problem back before the War of Northern Aggression.

In his book The Confederate Constitution of 1861 Marshall DeRosa noted that: “Within the context of American federalism does sovereignty reside in the people in their national or state capacities? To be more precise, does the U.S. Constitution establish an association of sovereign individuals within their respective states or a national community of sovereign individuals the states notwithstanding?” It seems that within the ‘more perfect Union” there has always been this tension. DeRosa noted that by 1861 this tension had become a major cleavage so that the Constitution “rather served as a vehicle for dissension and separation.”

DeRosa observed that: “This was most certainly the case by 1861, as Northerners insisted on a model of federalism consisting of a national community of individuals, with sovereignty being a national phenomenon–that is, nationalism–whereas Southerners adhered to a model consisting of a community of states.”

John C. Calhoun, while he was still alive, (he died in March, 1850) noticed that a transition was taking place wherein the old Federal Republic was being transformed into a consolidated democracy, which placed sovereign authority at the national level while taking power away from the states. That trend continued, with William Henry Seward claiming that the Constitution had established a national community of individuals and not a community of states. Seward was from New York.

And this thought has occurred to me–is it just possible that what Calhoun observed as a transformation was, in fact, actually there in seed form at the very beginning?

According to DeRosa, Seward claimed that: “the States are not parties to the Constitution as States; it is the Constitution of the people of the United States. But even if the States continue as States, they have surrendered their equality as States, and submitted themselves to the sway of the numerical majority…” There is no way I can agree with Seward’s blatant nationalism, but, what if that was really the intent from the beginning? What if nationalism was sold to the Southern states surreptitiously as federalism and, outside of a few men like Patrick Henry, hardly any grasped that? While that may sound far out to some, is it any further out than the idea of a group of men eagerly signing up for a “Union” they could not secede from only 13 years after they had experienced the same situation with Great Britain?

You have to wonder what would make men yoke themselves and their states again to a bondage they had only recently fought a war of independence to get away from. You have to wonder if some of these delegates had in mind something other than the freedom and liberty for both states and individuals that Patrick Henry envisioned.

An educated pastor once said to me “You have to wonder if there were some anti-Christs in that (constitutional) convention.” At the time, I did not grasp the enormity of his assertion. Now I have begun to.

Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights?

by Al Benson Jr.

A lot of years ago now, when I first became involved in conservative and patriotic endeavors, I can recall many patriotic folks saying that we needed to get our government “back to the Constitution.” While I believe that would be a step in the right direction, away from the rogue government we have now with its Marxist proclivities, I am not sure that, in the long run, this would solve all our problems. Although for a little over a decade I believed that myself, so I am not faulting in any way those that believe it. However, over the years, events have changed my thinking.

For many years, when I first got involved in all the events that have shaped the direction I have gone in, I had a good friend, and sometimes mentor, Pastor Ennio Cugini, of the Clayville Church in North Scituate, Rhode Island, half a country and a whole culture away from where I am now. Pastor Cugini had a radio broadcast in Rhode Island called “The Victory Hour” which he used effectively and vigorously to expose the machinations of Communists, socialists, and various New World Order types, both in government and in the churches (yes, they were and are in the churches). He was also an avid reader of history. You have to be in order to deal effectively with what has gone on in this country for over two centuries. This is where so many Evangelicals fall by the wayside. Their grasp of our history is like the Platte River in our West, a mile wide and an inch deep.

I recall talking with Pastor Cugini on the phone one time, way back in 1980. My family and I were living in Indiana at the time. Pastor Cugini was telling me about a book he had just read, Patrick Henry–Patriot and Statesman by Norine Dickson Campbell, published all the way back in 1969. It was basically a biography of Patrick Henry, but towards the end of the book, actually starting on page 322, she delved into Mr. Henry’s views on the U.S. Constitution and why he was such an ardent foe of the ratification of that document in Virginia. Just that fact alone startled me, because none of the history books I could recall reading ever went into any of that. Nowadays, I am not surprised, but then I was. I had yet to grasp the truth the the “winners write the history books.” In fact, the “history” books never mentioned much at all about Patrick Henry. About all you ever got from them was a brief commentary about his “liberty or death” speech and then they pretty much dropped him out of the historical narrative (if you can call it that).

After hunting around I managed to find a copy of Miss Campbell’s book. It was the last copy the bookstore had, and over the years I have only seen one other copy. If it hasn’t been reprinted it should be. After reading her book I can understand why it didn’t get lots of coverage. In a nut shell, even in 1787, Patrick Henry was politically incorrect! And many of the Federalist mentality (it’s still out there) have never forgiven him.

Pastor Cugini told me something in that phone conversation I have never forgotten. He said that, while political conservatives wish we could simply get back to following the Constitution, he had concluded, from Henry’s comments included in the book, that “the Constitution is the problem.” Miss Campbell’s book gave a lot of Henry’s reasons for his opposition to it, as he put them forth in Virginia during his opposition to ratification.

Henry was downright prescient in his predictions of what would happen to this country if the Constitution was ratified. One of his most prophetic statements was that the Union that was cobbled together by the Constitution would not last 100 years. He was right on–it didn’t It didn’t last ninety years.

Henry had a problem with the wording of the Preamble, where it said “We the People” which he felt should have read “We the States” because it was the states that eventually ratified the document. He also noted, correctly, that the delegates from the various states that assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 did not have instructions from their states to form a new government–all they had been delegated to do was to amend the Articles of Confederation–and so they far overstepped their instructions in what they ended up doing. Miss Campbell’s book on Patrick Henry is excellent. If you can find a used copy in a book store or on Amazon.com grab it before someone beats you to it.

A more recently published biography of Patrick Henry has been written by David J. Vaughan and is entitled Give Me Liberty. Mr. Vaughan echoed much of what Miss Campbell had earlier stated. He wrote: “Although the federal Convention that met in Philadelphia in May of 1787 was authorized only to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, the delegates devised an entirely new constitution that was subsequently sent to the states for ratification. Those that favored the new Constitution were named ‘Federalists’ while their opponents were called ‘Anti-Federalists.’ These labels were apt to be misleading, however. In fact it would be more accurate to name the pro-Constitution faction as ‘nationalists’ and the opposing group as the true ‘Federalists.’ For it was Henry and those of similar sentiments who espoused the true sentiments of federalism–a federation of independent and sovereign states…”

Vaughan also noted that the pro-Constitution group, led by James Madison, felt a stronger national government was needed. He said: “The national government, they believed, needed the power to tax and to regulate commerce…The way to give energy to the national government was to give it power, but this required a change in its form. The Anti-Federalists, (or Federal Republicans as they often called themselves) were led by Henry of course. In general the Republicans were united on the principle of confederation…In effect, Henry charged the Constitutional Convention with illegal proceedings. And he was right.”

Part 2–More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us

by Al Benson Jr.

It has been accurately asserted by author Gene H. Kizer Jr. that: “The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal. There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have a right to change their government anytime they see fit. The Compact Theory views the Constitution as a legal agreement between the states–a compact–and if any one state violates the compact, then the entire agreement becomes null and void. Northern states unquestionably violated the Constitution on a number of grounds including Personal Liberty Laws on their books, as well as by deliberately harboring fugitives from justice by protecting the sons of John Brown who were wanted by Virginia for murder at Harpers Ferry. Northern states also made a mockery of the Constitution’s Preamble which states clearly that the Constitution was established to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘promote the general Welfare.’ Certain prominent Northern leaders with the acquiescence of states like Massachusetts were utterly at war with the South and doing everything they could to destroy the domestic tranquility of the Southern states by encouraging slaves to murder white people, poison wells, destroy property and commit other acts of rapine. John Brown himself had been encouraged and financed by the North.”

I have, in the past, written about a group called The Secret Six, which financed Brown’s terrorist activities in both Kansas and Virginia. Of this group all, save one, was from New England and that one was from New York. An excellent book to read regarding this dismal period in our history is Otto Scott’s The Secret Six–The Fool as Martyr which is a biography of John Brown, and therefore deals with those that financed him in some detail. Another good work in this area worth reading, if you can find it is The Road to Harpers Ferry by J. C. Furnas. A couple years ago in my little newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle I did a series of biographical sketches on the Secret Six. Quite an interesting little group. One of them, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister made the statement “I am always ready to invest money in treason…” I mention all this to demonstrate that the North had indeed broken the Constitutional Compact.

Walter Williams, a distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University has written on the secession question on a number of occasions. In his understanding secession is indeed legal. He noted at one point that before the War Between the States a constitutional amendment was proposed by some Northern congressman that would prohibit secession. He then points out that there would have been no point in offering such an amendment if secession had already been unconstitutional. You do have to admit that he has a point.

A few years ago the late Joe Sobran, (whom I assume that most people who read have heard of), wrote an article that appeared on http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org in which he noted that: “Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated become Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.” And Sobran further observed, and I have to agree with him, that: “The original 13 states formed a ‘Confederation’ under which each state retained its ‘sovereignty, freedom and independence’.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were ‘granted’ and ‘delegated’ by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government. Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution…the United States are constantly referred to as ‘the Confederacy’ and a ‘confederate republic,’ as opposed to a single ‘consolidated’ or monolithic state. Members of ‘a confederacy’ are by definition free to withdraw from it.”

Sobran noted that while Hamilton and Madison sincerely hoped secession would never happen, they didn’t deny that it was a possibility, and even if Madison didn’t like or agree with it, that doesn’t make it illegal.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’.” Donald W. Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Emory University, and president of the Abbeville Institute, wrote in an article published in Chronicles magazine in October, 2010, that: “A state cannot retain sovereignty unless it has it, and in joining the Union no state renounced sovereignty. What motivates the nationalist theory is not an honest look at the historical founding of America, but political ambition legitimated by the philosophical theory of the modern unitary state. This ambition appears forcefully in Hamilton, who argued at the Philadelphia Convention for a president for life, a senate with members for life, appointed by the president, and state governors appointed by the president–in other words, monarchy by another name.” You have to wonder if any of those “you can’t get out of the Union no matter what” folks have something of this sort in mind. Those that seek to deny people their rights usually do have an agenda.

Perpetual Union–If you can bamboozle enough people–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

So Chase followed in the same vein that Lincoln had–the Union existed before the states and it was indestructible and irrevocable. And once you were in, you were still in, even if you seceded–in fact you really didn’t secede, you only thought you did. Of course, then, to get back into this “Union” you had never really been out of, you had to ratify certain amendments. At this point, the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the Yankee/Marxist absolutely defies description.

You have to wonder where these people got their notion of an “indestructible” Union. Did it have anything to do with what they were smoking? When the group assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 gave us the Constitution (when it was really beyond their instructions to do so) what they did, in effect, was to secede from the Articles of Confederation and give us a whole new government–one that did not use the words “perpetual union” and one that did not forbid secession, even though I have been informed that it really did.

When the New England states sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the secession of the New England states no one said anything. Admittedly, they ended up not seceding because the War of 1812 which had New England merchants so stirred up ended. However, they were strongly considering it, as they did two other times. In those days you didn’t take trips like that just to engage in political chit-chat. Yet no one complained. No one told the New Englanders that their secession was illegal or that the supremacy clause in the Constitution forbid them from ever seceding at any time unless all the other states were willing to let them go. The right of a state to secede was accepted. Remember the secession language in the New York and Virginia ratification ordinances? But some inform us that this was all meaningless, that once you were in you could never get out unless all the states were willing to let you go. You almost wonder if there was a slight double standard in operation here–it would have been okay if the New England states did it but not if the Southern states did it.

Contrary to Chase’s “indestructible Union” theory, Professor Donald W. Livingston has written in Secession, State & Liberty that “There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves.” Livingston further wrote that: “The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime…In this version, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project…” That is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the views of men like Lincoln and Chase, who, in a political sense, “Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…” (Romans 1).

The Southern states, and some Northern ones, always considered the Constitution to be a compact between sovereign states. Had it been understood by them as anything but that, it is highly doubtful that many of these states, a mere thirteen years after the end of our War for Independence, would have entangled themselves in the clutches of an indissoluble union from which they could never withdraw. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their groundbreaking work The South Was Right stated, on page 162: “In her act of ratification, Virginia drew a protective shield around the sovereign community and declared that sovereignty is derived from the people…The states did not intend to establish a supreme judge to rule over them. Before entering into the proposed constitutional contract, the state of Virginia (along with several other states, both north and south) declared the legal right of the sovereign community (the people of the state) to recall any delegated power if it is used in an act of oppression or injury against the people. The fact that the other states accepted the Virginia Act of Ratification without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia.”

If the Constitution is looked to as a document that forms an “indestructible” Union, then the states that ratified it have been lied to–sold a bill of goods, bought a political “gold brick’ as it were–a brick made not of gold, but of iron–that iron to forge the chains of those states that may finally realize they have been lied to and so they want out!

Secession was not illegal, was not rebellion as the Northern politicians claimed, and, as author James Street said: “The South got a raw deal.” And the Lincoln/Chase concept of “perpetual Union” is what is taught in the government schools in this country–to make sure no one ever again concludes that secession might be the answer to the problems of an ever-expanding socialist regime in Washington.

“Perpetual Union”–If you can bamboozle enough people into believing it

by Al Benson Jr.

In his rather convoluted thinking, Abraham Lincoln stated that: The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Some historians have noted that this association of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation was adopted, was a body that could only suggest certain courses of action, none of which had the force of law–a deliberative body–nothing more. Such facts made no difference whatever to Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t fit his agenda and so he ignored them. As far as he was concerned, it was all “the Union” even though his ethereal version of it existed in his mind before the documents that founded the Union existed. Walter Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 109 and following, which is chapter 5 entitled Lincoln’s Mystical View of the Union that this was Lincoln’s mindset.

Sad to say, this seems to be a rather strong tack in the Yankee/Marxist mindset in general. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase also seemed to lean strongly in this direction with his view of the Union.

John Niven, in his book Salmon P. Chase–a biography also noted: Had the Confederate States by their secession from the Union given up their former identity as Sumner, Stevens and other radical politicians argued? If they had, then it would logically follow that secession was a lawful act and the Union had existed only at the sufferance of the states, an argument Lincoln dismissed as an abstraction…

It has been argued that “The South never really understood the Union.” That may be true–at least they never understood it in the sense that the Yankee did. Had they truly done so, I would submit that the Southern states never should have ratified the Constitution to begin with. Christian statesman Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians with common sense arguments and logic of the dangers of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. Virginians did not heed his words. They should have. And yet, maybe some of the mud stuck against the wall, for in Virginia’s ratification ordinances it was stated: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. New York’s ratification statement pretty much says the same thing. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with this language included in them.

In other words, some states ratified the Constitution with the proviso that, should things not work out in this new union, they had the right to leave. That was the Southern understanding of this new Constitution, and it would seem that some Northern folks had the same understanding. I agree with them. Yet, suffice it to say, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, after the War of Northern Aggression (or could we call it the War of Marxist Revolution?) took a view totally opposed to that truth, as had Lincoln. Should anyone really be surprised? After all, the winners always get to redefine the “history.”

Chase noted, in 1869, that the Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. He felt that once a state or territory got into the Union, that was it. It was there for eternity unless its status was determined by a revolution, or “consent of the states.” Chase noted the language in the Articles of Confederation about a “perpetual Union.” That term, “perpetual” did not appear in the new Constitution, but rather the new document referred to a “more perfect Union.” Chase apparently took that to mean “more perpetually perfect.” If Chase was aware or either Virginia’s nor New York’s ratification terminology he kept silent about it. After all, those ratification ordinances contradicted his “indestructible Union” tomfoolery.

And Chase was, apparently, more than ready to accept more broad, sweeping powers for the federal government. In 1866 he observed: That the war had changed the government and the powers of government were essentially different from what they were before the war. Now there was an understatement if ever I saw one, and yet a revelation as well. He’s telling you, right flat out, that the war gave the federal government more and expanded powers–probably not constitutional ones–but not to worry, Chase’s Supreme Court would remedy that little problem.

To be continued.

It’s 1860 In Nevada–the War of Northern Aggression Moves To the Far West

by Al Benson Jr.

It has probably been around two decades now since I first made the observation that the War of Northern Aggression solved nothing, (it was never intended to) except to demonstrate who had the most money, men, and guns. All the problems attendant to that War remain with us today–and some of the folks in the Western states are now beginning to realize that.

Just today (4/24) I saw a short article on http://libertycrier.com that plainly stated: “While the debate continues over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s dispute with federal land managers, supporters in nearby Southern Utah say the much publicized quarrel has brought the issue of states’ rights to the forefront. ‘I think the Bundy issue is just a symptom of the many issues that are out there,’ said Washington Country Commissioner Alan Gardner. Gardner said the dispute raised awareness for states’ rights issues and energized those who feel the federal government has too much control over the public lands in Western States.”

States’ rights! Anyone ever heard that before? I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center will condemn all those in the West that harbor states’ rights sentiments as “racists” because they dare to think in those terms.  After all, “Honest” Harry RE(i)D has gone out of his way to label the ranchers as “domestic terrorists” so that now gives the lapdog media two different horrific titles to throw at the Western folks. Westerners may soon begin to realize how we in the South feel, because they are about to become victims of the same brand of Cultural Marxism that has been shoved down the throats of Southerners for decades now.

I still think it would be a great idea if the “Cowboys and the Confederates” could sit down at the same table and begin to discuss what has gone on and what is going on in this country. For the most part we should all be on the same page. Someone with the ability of an organizer should work on this idea, provided we can keep the agent provocateurs out. The Northern Aggressors have shafted and are shafting both groups and they should seek out ways to help one another out.  Real states’ rights would be good for both the South and the West because, let’s face it, none of us has them, nor have we had them in my lifetime–in fact, as the Nevada State Constitution of 1864 plainly shows, Nevada never had them to begin with as a state, with the feds owning over 80% of the states’ land.

I noted only this past weekend that representatives from nine Western state, more than 50 of them, according to http://www.foxnews.com “…made their proclamations  at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management…Whether the federal government will use the court system or other methods to try to resolve such disputes remains unclear.” It’s those “other methods” that concern people, not only in the West, but in other areas where this situation is being observed. And thanks to the alternate media, it is being observed. It was only their observation and commentary that caused the lapdog media to finally deign to comment on the situation.

Honest Harry said earlier this week that he had talked with what passes for an Attorney General these days and “that a task force might be formed.” Law enforcement people said Saturday that there are no plans for this.  (Translation: they may well try it so the militia folks on the ground there had best be prepared.)

The folks in the Western States feel that they are better qualified to manage the land in their respective states rather than leaving it up to some one-size-fits-all bureaucrat in Sodom on the Potomac. Can’t argue with that assessment.

It seems that the BLM (Bureau of Licensed Marauders) have plans for a lot more Western land than Mr. Bundy’s ranch. In an article on http://www.breitbart.com someone sent me yesterday, someone said: “The Eyes of the BLM are on Texas, on the Bureau of Land Management’s intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.” Gen Abbott said: “I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” He has already sent a strong letter to the BLM director, Harry Reid’s old buddy, Neil Kornze, strongly expressing his concernes about this attempt at Texas land usurpation.

General Abbott stated: “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country…And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Let’s hope General Abbott sticks to his guns.

He is right on the money about one thing–the Obama administration couldn’t care less about the rule of law–that’s for us “petty bourgeois” not for our exalted Marxist rulers. They are above all that. They do what they please and if they do manage to do something that’s really over the edge and Congress calls them on it, they just get “Attorney General” Holder to stonewall Congress so nothing ever happens. He’s good at that.

One thing all of us, Southern folks, Western folks, all sincere folks, had best get firmly implanted into our “thinking caps” is that this administration is at war with the American people. They have orders to tear this country down and they are not about to let a ragtag group of Cowboys or Confederates or whoever, deter them from that agenda. They will remove their opposition any way they have to, lawful, illegal, or otherwise. This is what we are dealing with folks. We’d better get used to it.

“Dirty Harry” Won’t Get Mad–He’ll Get Even!

by Al Benson Jr.

Anyone remember the Sagebrush Rebellion back in the 1970s and 80s? In thirteen Western states the federal government controlls between 30% and 75-80% of the land, depending on which state you are in.

Although I don’t always believe everything Wikipedia says, by any means, once in awhile they get it right, and awhile back http://en.wikipedia.org  said of the Sagebrush Rebellion that it was: “An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies.” As for the current regime in Washington, the last thing in the world they are concerned about is the growth of Western economies–unless that “growth” is administered by their friends who will make sweetheart deals with countries hostile to the US, so that both hostile countries and politicians can make big bucks selling off US sovereignty and helping to destroy the middle class. That’s what Marxism/corporate fascism is really all about, and our “public servants”  today abound in it!

Even Wikipedia sort of half-heartedly recognized the Sagebrush Rebellion as, basically a states rights issue. And what has been going on at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada is the same states rights issue. But the feds, as usual, don’t plan to taking NO for an answer. They didn’t at Waco and Ruby Ridge and they won’t here. They will exert their power in any way they have to in order to show that they run things, and if they end up having to kill a bunch of people off, so what? They believe in the Marxist principle  that the end justifies the means. When they incinerated those people at Waco, including the children, it was all for their own good, right? That’s the way those people think–whatever they do has to be good and right–because, after all, they are the go(d)vernment and they know best!

Comrade Reid (aka “Dirty Harry”) had an ominous message for Mr. Bundy and his family according to http://www.foxnews.com when he said: “Well, it’s not over, we can’t have, in America, people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” What he really meant was that he was ticked off because all the controversy raised by the Bundy Ranch situaton exposed his and his son’s sweet deal with a Chinese solar farm company and made him look bad. He wasn’t all that happy about that. So he and our Marxist-in-Chief and probably his “Attorney General” will have to find some way to get back at those nasty ranchers and make them pay, in spades, for daring to defy “national authority.” Fox News noted Reid’s hesitancy to speak on this issue and said: “That’s perhaps due to Reid’s  reported lobbying of the (Bureau of Land Management) to change the desert tortoise’s mapped habitat, allowing Nevada real estate mogul Harvey Whittemore to build on land near the Bundy Ranch. Last year Whittemore was convicted of making illegal campaign  contributions to Reid, and the Majority Leader’s former senior adviser was confirmed as the new head of BLM just last week.” Is this a great kountry or what?

The site http://thecommonsenseshow.com carried an article by Dave Hodges on April 14th  that noted: “China, allied with Russia, is in the process of taking over the United States, or should I say that our public officials are giving away the country to them…In my previous article, it was clearly demonstrated  that the Chinese are preparing, among other things, to assume control of supplying America’s energy needs at a cost they deem appropriate. It is a simple business proposition. They own our debt, we have defaulted and they are here to be compensated.”

Mr. Hodges continued: “The Bundy affair affirmed the fact that  Chinese are being handed control of solar energy inside the United States and that this is being facilitated by Senator Harry Reid. The takeover of American energy is being manifested on many fronts, but in particular, it is being concentrated on the takeover of the solar energy industry in the new Agenda 21 designation with the so-called ‘Solar Energy Zones’.” So there is a lot more involved here than the habitat of the desert tortoise–the UN’s Agenda 21 project is their blueprint and that bodes no good for the American public.

As if to reassert what much of this is all about http://townhall.com stated in an article on 4/14 that “Outraged over the heavy-handed tactics, about 1,000 states rights activists traveled to Mesquite (Nevada) to support Bundy. Many gun owners showed up lawfully carrying firearms, and local cowboys came riding in on horses. They were afraid they could be the next targets of  a federal government overreach, and felt it was time to take a stand.” Men, as far as you all being the next federal targets–depend on it–the federal drones have recorded who was there, and after the feds get through getting even with the Bundys, they will come looking for you, especially if you own any land they want in the “national interest.”

Sadly, this isn’t over and those governmental Marxist mentalities don’t quit. Part of our problem in this country is that we do quit and they don’t–until they get what they want–and at that point we all begin to experience what the Communists refer to as “peaceful co-existence.”

The question hasn’t arisen much, but I think it should.  Why should the federal government own so much land in so many states? Once a state has been given statehood, the land in that state should belong to that state, not to the federal government. If you have a state, anywhere, where the feds control 75% of the land in that state, is that state really a sovereign state or is it, in effect, still mostly a federal territory with the feds calling all the shots? What states rights do the people in any state have if the feds still control 75% of the real estate in their state?

This should concern Southern folks as well as Western folks. Seems to me we are all fighting the same battle. Folks in the South fought it first, but we are all fighting it now–maybe on different levels depending how much land the feds control in different states–but it’s still the same battle.  Maybe the Cowboys and the Confederates ought to get together.  We have a lot of the same problems and the same people, in many cases, are causing the problems we both experience.  Maybe it’s time for a Cowboy/Confederate Alliance.

How About Nullification In 2014?

by Al Benson Jr.
As we approach the year 2014 there are dire predictions all around about what’s coming. One I recently read said, of 2014, “More of the same, only worse.” I can understand the rationale for that. Comrade Obama will only be through half of his last (so we are told) term in office by 2014 and he has lots of damage left to do yet. His handlers over at the Council on Foreign Relations expect him to have our economy and most of the middle class totally incapacitated before he leaves office to be replaced by Ms. Hitlery Clinton in 2016. If he accomplishes that then Comrade Klinton will not have to work too hard to preside over the ruins of what was once America but has now become Amerika—The United Socialist States of Amerika—the “People’s Republic.”

Congress, for the most part, with a few exceptions, is bought and paid for by the same crowd that pulls Comrade Obama’s puppet strings, so you can’t expect much help there. The Supreme Court justices, most of which are so concerned how future generations of socialists will view them, will be no help to ordinary Americans (remember their vote on Obamacare?).

The whole thing has been set up so that most Americans will be so beset by the futility of what they see around them that they will just cave in and offer no resistance to the One World government crowd.

But, as well as the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderburg consortium has planned our demise, there is still resistance. They have not been able to shut it all down, and it’s very possible they never will. After all, there is still a God in Heaven and He does rule in the affairs of men, even when they do not choose to realize it.

I  just read an article published on http://www.zerohedge.com  which noted, on 12/12/13, that the State of South Carolina was about to pass a bill to nullify Obamacare. The article started off: “While we all know that the disaster that is Obamacare is extremely unpopular throughout the country, South Carolina is leading the charge to actually nullify the legislation. House Bill 3101 already passed the state House back in April by a wide margin, and is set to be voted on in the state Senate in January. It is widely expected to pass and then be signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley. If that happens it would set up a huge states rights victory and likely encourage other states to follow suit. It will be extremely interesting to see how the feds respond to this…” It will, indeed, and you can bet they will respond.

More resistance—an article on http://www.msnbc.com in which Ron Paul has suggested that states should nullify Obamacare. Mr. Paul said: “I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification if it’s not legalized. Because pretty soon things are going to get so bad that were just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states. Why should we grant this authority to a few thugs who want to take over the government to make all our decisions for us?”

Then there was the article written for the New American  magazine by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. which appeared on http://chasvoice.blogspot.com for December 28, 2013, which stated, in part, “Four Georgia state legislators are listening to the crescendo of constituent opposition to Obamacare…At their press conference, the lawmakers sought not only to explain their proposal, but to drum up support for it among like-minded Georgians…Representative Stover denounced the federal government’s usurpation of unconstitutional power. ‘To tax someone for simply being alive is anti-American, anti-Constitutional and anti-common sense…The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.’ Stover’s analysis of the Constitution is right. Understanding that the states created the federal government will help state legislators and citizens appreciate the constitutional propriety and potency of the principles of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798.” Now that’s a subject I’d be willing to bet your public school “history” books have not spent too much time dwelling on. The less you know about that, the better—for them!

There will be an election in 2014, provided Comrade Obama does not get the order from his bosses to just seize power. Americans should now direct their attention to ousting from office every single excuse-for-a-congressperson that voted in favor of Obamacare. But, then, how successful that will be may well depend on who gets to count the votes after the election.

An article on the Capitalism Institute website, http://www.capitalisminstitute.org has recently noted that the One World government types will blithely tell us that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution trumps all state efforts to do anything the feds find offensive. The articles observes: “However, those at the Tenth Amendment Center disagree…The major argument used by those that oppose Nullification is the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But in fact, the arguments for the supremacy clause ARE the arguments for nullification. The major architects of the Constitution, and those that led the fight for its adoption, laid down what the supremacy clause meant during the ratifying conventions. By doing so, they defended state sovereignty, and set the stage for the negation of unconstitutional  actions.”

Even that would-be monarchist, Alexander Hamilton, was forced to admit: “…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” Again, something the “history” books no longer mention—what I call “memory-hole material.” And then, there is that list of 27 states that have filed suits over the constitutionality of Obamacare as of 2011. Can Comrade Holder just call all these state suits null and void? He will if he can. The Justice Department today is hardly about anything remotely approaching justice and it is more about “just us—and our friends”—a little crony capitalism for the good old boys in Washington and New York.

And, for someone who would like to read a little more about all this in depth, I would recommend the book by the Kennedy Brothers, Nullifying Tyranny. This is a book that should be used in every civics or political science class in every high school in the country and in colleges, too.

On page 10 of their book the Kennedy Brothers state: “The central theme of this book is that the political system devised by the founding fathers and handed down to ‘we the people’ has been perverted and distorted by special interest groups. These special interest groups now use the power of the federal government to advance their social agenda while at the same time enacting laws that repress traditional Christian morality and are destructive of traditional family values…We believe that America’s current political system is broken, and, if Christian moral values are to survive in the United States, there must be a radical restoration of America’s political institutions—back to the form and functions intended by the founding fathers when they gave ‘we the people’ a constitutionally limited republic of republics.”

So, if things do, indeed, get worse in 2014, at least let it not be because the majority of Americans just decided to complain and after that to sit it out. Do some homework. Read the Kennedy Brothers book and find out what you can do to help remedy our tragic situation. And work to support those legislators in your various states that seek to protect you from federal thugs via the nullification process.fer no resistance to the One World government crowd.

he futility of what they see around them that they w