Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary masses of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge to the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge for itself … each party has equal right to judge for it-self.12
A reading of these resolutions will demonstrate that the central premise of the original American government was the right of the state to protect the people of that state from the illegal incursion of a power-hungry federal government. John C. Calhoun made this statement from the Senate floor:
The Constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the United States within the limits of the several States only so far as the delegated powers authorize; beyond that they [the federal government] are intruders, and may rightfully be expelled.13
He explained that the only way the federal government could circumvent the right of the states to protect the people was by “… prostrating the Constitution, and substituting the supremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the law. …”’14 (Perhaps Calhoun was prophesying of woes to come.)
Even in the early days of the Original Republic, there were grave doubts about the ability of the federal government to discipline itself in the execution of its powers. As the Northern element strove to gain control of the federal government, the Constitution was constantly being “prostrated” and denounced as a “covenant with Hell!” Thus the Northern element decided that it was time to brush aside the technical limitations imposed by the Constitution and by acts of aggression move directly against the Southern people.
THE NORTH’S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE CONSTITUTION
Laws comprising any legal system have two distinct aspects. Laws have a strict written denotation known in common usage as the letter of the law. But laws also have a connotation set by the spirit of the age in which the law was written. This is known as the spirit of the law. It may be possible to fulfill the letter of the law while actually destroying the spirit of the law. The spirit of our original Constitution was to limit the power of the central government while protecting the liberties of the people within their states. Prior to the War for Southern Independence, the Northern element used the method of loose construction to attack the spirit of the Constitution. The attempt to destroy the spirit of the Constitution reached its most destructive form when the North chose to use military force against the sovereign community in each of the Southern states to prevent them from recalling their delegated rights.
It should be noted that it is far more reasonable to assume a constitutional right of the Southern states to secede from a union from which they had formally and voluntarily acceded than it is to justify, on constitutional grounds, the act of armed aggression on the part of the dominant Northern element against the Southern people. This is especially true when we realize that the term “perpetual union” was not included in the Constitution even though it had been a part of the Articles of Confederation that preceded it! The act of armed aggression by the North to force a new form of government upon the people of the South was in reality an attack upon the original spirit of the Constitution. The attack was an overwhelming success. By the end of the war the South lay prostrate, her armies were physically exhausted, a large portion of her male population was either dead or maimed, her political leaders were imprisoned, and her economy was totally destroyed. But worst of all, the spirit of the Original Constitution was dead!
The end of the war did not mark the end of hostilities. The death of the spirit of the Original Constitution was not enough to satisfy the dominant Northern element. The letter of the law had to be destroyed as well—lest these Southerners regain their nerve and attempt to use political power to enforce the limitations left in the Constitution. The Northern element knew that in order to complete its conquest the letter of the law had to be destroyed. In a political sense, the second attack was as disastrous for the Southern people as the armed invasion had been.
How was this radical change in the American government accomplished? As we have already noted, the stronger element seeking a change in the form of a constitutional republic has only the following two choices: (1) it can use the slow method of loose construction to gradually erode the limitations imposed by the constitution, or (2) it can use its stronger position to wage aggressive war against the smaller element and, after defeating it, dictate the form of the new government. While both methods have been and still are being used against the Southern people, it is the latter, armed aggression, that has forced the greatest change.
ENTER RECONSTRUCTION
The South’s failure in the War for Southern Independence is the primary factor determining the relationship between the Northern and Southern people. The war and Reconstruction marked the end of the American Constitutional Republic. The officially accepted history (myth) conveniently ignores the distinction between the American government after the war, as compared to the government that existed before the war. Just as the Imperialists of ancient Rome attempted to keep the trappings of Republican Rome, the Yankee myth-makers attempt to convince us that the current federal government is a legitimate descendant and a natural continuation of the Original American Republic of 1776. The truth is that the Yankee myth of history is a lie!
On March 2, 1867, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act. This act abolished civil government in the Southern states. It divided the South into five military districts with a commander of the rank of brigadier general or higher in each district. The army re-invaded the South, abolished all semblance of civil government, and set up military rule. An example of the dictatorial rule imposed on the South is seen in the manner in which the chief executive of the state of Mississippi was treated. Governor Benjamin G. Humphreys was the duly elected governor of the state, when Maj. Gen. Edward O. C. Ord was put in command of the Fourth Military District, which comprised the states of Mississippi and Arkansas. General Ord was a corp commander under General Grant. Ord was given complete authority over the affairs of these states. The governors of Mississippi and Arkansas were without any power to act for their states. All gubernatorial appointments were subject to military veto, and all offenses against “freedmen” were made subject to military courts, as well as many other offenses as determined by the occupying forces. This scenario was played out throughout the South, with the advent of Reconstruction. The Reconstruction Act disfranchised all voters and directed the army to set up registration of its own. The effect was to disfranchise a large portion of white Southerners and to extend the franchise to illiterates, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers.
The Reconstruction Act of 1867 declared that the Southern states were not part of the Union. Remember, this was the same Union from which the North had previously said that these states could not withdraw! From 1866 to March 2, 1867, the Southern states were accorded the rights of statehood. They participated in the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment and in the rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment posed a major roadblock to the revolutionary schemes of the radicals in Congress. They knew that, even after their successful military conquest of the Southern people, they could not complete their evil designs as long as the South retained even this slight amount of political power. To further their evil schemes the radicals decided to eject their conquered foe from Congress and then co
mplete their revolution. To further their revolutionary and evil goals, the Northern element treated the Southern states alternately as states and as conquered territories.
When Congress enacted the first so-called Reconstruction Act, it was promptly vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. Congress voted to override the veto that very same day! The fact that Congress so quickly voted to override a presidential veto demonstrates just how committed the Northern element was to its evil scheme. With the Southern people completely expelled from Congress, the Northern radicals set about completing their work of destroying the original constitutional republic and of legalizing their efforts to rob the Southern people of their liberties and what wealth that remained after the war.
In his veto message to Congress, President Johnson made the following statement:
The bill also denies the legality of the governments of ten of the States which participated in the ratification of the [Thirteenth] Amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction of the United States and practically excludes them from the union. If this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence cannot be considered as having been legally given, and the important fact is made to appear that the consent of the three-fourths of the States—the requisite number has not been obtained to the ratification of that amendment, thus leaving the question of slavery where it stood before the amendment.15
Thus the Northern Congress recognized the legality of the Southern states as long as their actions did not conflict with the radicals’ plans. When the South legally rejected the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby refused to acquiesce to the Northern demand to change the letter of duly established constitutional law, the North denied the legal existence of the Southern states. Even though the spirit of the Constitution was destroyed by the North’s aggressive war, the South still refused to voluntarily allow the destruction of the letter of legally enacted constitutional law. The Southern states recognized the Fourteenth Amendment as an attempt by the Northern-controlled Congress to transfer all reserved power to a newly created centralistic federal government and therefore rejected the amendment. The Northern element knew that, if it wished to advance its revolutionary scheme, something else had to be done. Political expediency in the North produced Reconstruction in the South. (See Addendum VII, “Plunder of Eleven States,” by U.S. Rep. Dan Vorhees of Indiana, March 23, 1872.)
The treatment afforded the Southern people at the hands of the Northern Congress during Reconstruction stands as historical proof of the extent to which the North is willing to go to destroy those who dare oppose it. The right to vote was denied to a large portion of white citizens, and new elections were ordered with illiterates enfranchised regardless of their lack of education or qualifications. New legislatures composed of illiterates and others who had little or no governmental experience were elected to carry out the demands of the Northern Congress. The United States government (Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court) had no constitutional authority to interfere with the right of the people of the states to form their own governments. Yet, in defiance of the letter and spirit of the Original Constitution, the new puppet legislatures, controlled by the Northern Congress and enforced by Northern bayonets, promptly proceeded to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. This was done even though the Secretary of State in Washington had in hand from the legitimate Southern legislatures previously enacted resolutions rejecting the proposed amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment was the legislative procedure used by the Northern-controlled Congress to replace the Original Constitutional Republic with a new government of centralistic federalism. The effect of the amendment was to shift the power from the local level (the sovereign communities) and give it to a central government. The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the longest in the Constitution. A brief review of pertinent sections will demonstrate its radical nature:
Section 1. This section defines for the first time a citizen of the United States. Its prohibitions are solely against the states. There are no provisions against the federal government engaging in oppressive acts or usurping powers not belonging to it.
Section 3. This section provides the legal excuse used to disfranchise white Southerners. It bars from state or federal office any person who, as an official of any kind, had previously taken an oath of office and later participated in the “rebellion.” This is what is known as expost facto law. It should be noted that ex post facto laws are specifically forbidden in Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution.
Section 5. This section contains the enabling clause giving Congress a free hand in the internal policies of a state. The enabling clause is the legal excuse that allows Congress to impose its rules upon the Southern people. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to allow the federal government to control the voting qualifications in the Southern states, and impose forced busing, reverse discrimination, minority set-asides, etc.
This amendment was a radical departure from the original letter and spirit of the Constitution. The actions of the Northern-dominated Congress, in conjunction with the acts of the Northern armies, destroyed the concept of the state as an equal partner in a co-ordinate state/federal governmental arrangement. Gone were the concepts of delegated and reserved powers. Gone were the concepts of a government in which authority arose voluntarily from the people and extended to their agent, the state. And for the Southern people—what happened to the concept of “government by the consent of the governed”? One might say that it too is “gone with the wind!”
THE ENACTMENT OF A FRAUD
A study of the death of the American Constitutional Republic would be incomplete without a review of the arrogant methods used by the Northern Congress and its total disdain for constitutional law in its efforts to secure enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. The term “enactment” is used as opposed to the legal and constitutional term “ratified.” This review will further serve to establish the illegitimacy of the present centralistic federal government.
Congressman Thaddeus Stevens declared, “We shall treat the South as a defeated enemy.”16 The Northern Congress fulfilled this threat with the methods it used to secure the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time of the introduction of the amendment, there were thirty-seven states in the Union. By mid 1867, the federal Secretary of State had received official documents from the legislatures of thirty-three of the thirty-seven states giving the states’ answer to the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The result was a rejection of the radical amendment. The results were as follows:
States in the Union…………37
Needed to ratify……………28
States voting yes……………22
States voting no……………12
States not voting……………3
Mississippi’s rejection resolution did not reach Washington, and therefore it is numbered with the non-voting states. Even if the three non-voting states are added to the states voting for ratification, the amendment would still be short of the number needed for ratification.
The Northern Congress realized that its attempt to secure passage by legal and constitutional methods had failed. Thus the letter of the constitutional law survived its initial post-war assault. But the Northern Congress was determined to complete the radical change it had initiated. Frivolous technicalities such as constitutional limitations, ethics, and morality had proven no obstacle in the North’s war against the Southern people. Certainly these barriers would prove no more difficult to surmount in the political sphere than it had been in the military sphere.
To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following:
1. Declare the Southern States outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union.
2. Deny majority rule in the Southern states by the disfran-chisement of large numbers of the white population.
3. Require the Southern States to ratify the amendment as the price of getting bac
k into the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.
The third point could be turned into a Yankee brain-teaser. The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern States to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be a part of anyway, and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.
During the American Revolution, one of the great battle cries of the colonies was “No taxation without representation.” The Yankee myth of history has conveniently chosen to ignore a far greater wrong committed by an arrogant legislative body. The act of disfranchising the white population of the South, which comprised the majority, was nothing less than a deliberate attempt to secure the enactment of a favored piece of legislation without obtaining the consent of the people. The Southern people were denied equal representation in both houses of Congress. For the South this was “legislation without representation.”
The flagrant disregard for the spirit and letter of the Original Constitution did produce some criticism in the North. The state of New Jersey passed a joint resolution withdrawing its consent to the adoption of the amendment (see Addendum VIII). The Northern Congress ignored this resolution and counted New Jersey as having voted in favor of ratification. The New Jersey resolution called attention to the fact that one of its United States senators had been excluded from voting and that his seat had been vacated in the federal Senate when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed. This was done in addition to the exclusion of the senators and representatives from the Southern states. Article V of the Constitution plainly states that “No state, without its permission, may be denied equal suffrage in the Senate.” There is no denial that the Northern Congress intentionally and with malice violated Article V of the Constitution.
The South Was Right Page 20