 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/07/true-history-of-america-part-2-1840.html
First, let us clear up a deliberate and quite frankly idiotic and unsustainable assertion- the original form of treaty between the States of the United States was a Union through a Treaty of Perpetual Union and not a Confederation. That is why the catch cry of the Northern States to go to war was “To Preserve the Union”. It is also why the preamble of the Constitution refers to a union or a "more perfect union". It is also why the original Constitution refers to the granting of powers (which is a gift) and not a delegation of powers (as in a confederation). It is also why it was called the Union Army and not the Confederate Army. The Confederate Army was called the Confederate Army. So why is there such stubborn confusion amongst people? How could so many suspend common sense and reason in the face of such overwhelming facts?
The Articles of Confederation were the papers documenting the Confederation or Federation (free market government design) between 1776, 13 Republics, and a Voluntary Union of Republics (or States), and look what happened:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Antifederalist.pdf
Antifederalist No. 15
RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)
The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
There was no fugitive slave laws under the Confederacy between 1776 and 1787, and people, by local representation, could JOIN or UNJOIN the NON-PERPETUAL UNION, until the criminals took over in 1787.
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n112/mode/2up
The Criminals, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Robbert Morris, and even James Madison, took over as the FALSE Federalist party.
How is that not easy to see?
Why is that overlooked as if that does not matter?
I wrote that before listening to and reading the following from Frank O'Collins:
Well, the reason is because in every single history book and on display in Washington, D.C. is the claimed Articles of Confederation that were supposed to have been formed in 1777 and then “replaced” by the Constitution in 1788. And the reason is simple because Article 1 of these Articles says “The Stile of this confederacy shall be The United States of America”. So no wonder there is confusion.
Why then? Why would the Union Army under the mind control of Wall Street use terms of the Confederacy it just defeated? What possible motive would the bankers and their loyal servants and mercenaries have in creating such confusion?
The people, working people, productive people, not the supposed leaders in America were independent minded, independent in spirit, and independent OF the criminals who would be kings, masters, criminals. The VOLUNTARY nature of connection was defended by people defending the VOLUNTARY nature of connection, and that happened in a Federal form between 1776 and 1787, which was a VOLUNTARY UNION of Republics and that was NOT the Consolidated, Monopolized, Cartelized, Criminalized Dirty Compromise of 1787 at the Con Con in Philadelphia.
Simple:
1. Declaration of Independence reads: NO MORE LEGAL CRIMINALS
2. Formations of people volunteering to establish defensive Republics numbering 13, including many forms of ideas known as a Bill of Rights.
3. 13 Constitutional Republics forming a Voluntary Federation where a Continental Congress manages the voluntary association of those people in those Republics, and in that group were infiltrators from the criminal cabal. Why else would they have "elected" Generalisimo Washington as the "leader" of the voluntary defensive forces?
4. Shays's Rebellion continued the voluntary independent defensive force against criminal take over of the people, but the defenders lost, but the Federal design proved to be working at defeating the infiltration of criminals into the government, as the defeated defensive forces fled to other Republics as run away slaves.
5. The criminals figured out that the Voluntary Federation had to go, and the criminals figured out that the Monarchy/Perpetual Union/Cartelization/Consolidation/Single Fraud and Extortion Monopoly had to be put in place, so the Con Con was put on the schedule by the criminals who then made The Dirty Compromise between Northern banking/merchant interests and Southern slave trading/tobacco/plantation interest.
So whose side was the French in this 1787 takeover?
1. Union of Merchants (British and Bank of England)
2. Dutch East India Company (red, white, and blue flag no less) Wall Street Central Banking/Drug Trade/Slave trade cabal?
North looks like 1. South looks like 2. The Dirty Compromise was a deal made in 1787 to start planning on the purge of 1860. Anti-Federalist (false name) Papers spell it out well enough.