The New Jersey resolution is a fiery indictment of the Northern Congress. The fifth paragraph of Joint Resolution, Number 1, State of New Jersey, reads as follows:
That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state and thus denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate.
In paragraph eleven of the New Jersey resolution the amendment is denounced:
It denounces and inflicts punishment for past offenses [expost facto law, see Article 9, Section 1, United States Constitution] and therefore is guilty of violating a cardinal principle of American liberty that no punishment can be inflicted for any offense, unless it is provided by laws before the commission of the offense.
Paragraph fifteen also criticizes the amendment:
It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such parts of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment, made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachments upon the lives, liberty, and property of the people.
Paragraph sixteen contains the ominous warning against a future all-powerful Supreme Court:
It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State … within the jurisdiction of the Federal tribunals.
Paragraph eighteen attacks the amendment for denying the states the right to establish “reasonable qualifications” for voting. These men should have been around when the Northern-controlled Congress passed the punitive Southern-only “Voting Rights Act.”
Paragraph nineteen is the strongest attack upon the amendment protesting against its denial of the right of the states of the Union to set up reasonable qualifications for voting and claiming that it
… transfers to Congress the whole control of the right of suffrage in the State. … a power which they [the states] have never been willing to surrender to the general government, and which was reserved to the states as a fundamental principle on which the Constitution itself was constructed—the principle of self-government.
A Southerner could not have said it better!
New Jersey was not the only Northern state to recognize the fraud and corruption of the Northern Congress. The states of Ohio and Oregon both repealed their ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. In October 1868, the legislature of Oregon issued a rescinding resolution stating that the amendment had not received ratification by three-fourths of the states and that the forced ratification of the Southern states were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void.” We remind the reader that these are the words of a Northern legislative body.
Who can truthfully question those of us who agree with the assessment of this Northern state legislature? These acts were and are unconstitutional, usurpations, revolutionary, and voidl
There are those who would insist that even if the preceding were true it no longer makes any difference because the Fourteenth Amendment is now a part of the Constitution. These apologists for Yankee imperialism choose to ignore the fact that for laws to have moral and ethical legitimacy, they must be made in pursuance of the Constitution. Even though passed by Congress, blessed by a centralist Supreme court, and enforced by the president, if such laws invade the residuary authority of the sovereign state they are, as Alexander Hamilton declared:
… merely acts of usurpation. … There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.17
Here is the judgment of an ardent Federalist (in reality he was a consummate centralist—a monarchist). Yet, even one with such a strong desire to enlarge and create a strong central government admitted that laws enacted against the provisions of the Constitution are void of legitimacy!
The legacy of crime and corruption extended even to the state legislature of Oregon. The two representatives from Grant County were refused their seats. Two imposters, Brentz and McKean, filled the vacated seats and (guess what?) voted for ratification. The victory margin for ratification in the Oregon legislature was very close. Even with the two imposters voting for the amendment, it barely passed. Three days later, when the legitimate representatives from Grant County were at last seated, they both signed statements that if they had been allowed to vote they both would have voted against the amendment. Thus it would not have passed the Oregon legislature!
This brief review of what the Yankee myth-makers refer to as Reconstruction demonstrates the gross, unconstitutional, and criminal methods used by the Northern Congress to change the form of the American government. Too many Southerners think that the present federal government is the same one our Founding Fathers established. Nothing could be further from reality. The American government, after the defeat of the South, is to the original American Constitutional Republic what Imperial Rome was to Republican Rome. While the name, geography, and institutions may be similar to those of the past, the exercise of governmental power over the people underwent a radical change in the limits of governmental authority. The current all-powerful behemoth in Washington is void of the letter and spirit of our Original Constitutional Republic. The result of an aggressive war and Reconstruction, in addition to our present political and economic serfdom, proves that the South was right in 1861.
THE SOUTH UNDER THE NEW GOVERNMENT
To understand the radical change that occurred in the American government as a result of the war and Reconstruction, we need only ask the average Southerner to explain the “Bill of Rights.” A simple question, yet compare the modern answer to the answer you would have received from Southerners such as Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry. The modern idea is that the “Bill of Rights” is a document that protects the rights of American citizens. Yet, before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no such thing as an American citizen. An individual was a citizen of the state, not of the federal government. Why was this important? Recall the origin of the American system of government. The individuals in possession of their liberties made up thirteen separate sovereign communities (i.e., the thirteen states). Authority arose from individuals who came together to form the sovereign community, and as individuals they delegated authority to form the state government. The states, as agents of the people, then formed the federal government. What purpose then did the “Bill of Rights” serve?
With the exception of Article 1, Section 10, all the limitations of the United States Constitution as ratified by the states (which includes the first ten amendments containing the “Bill of Rights”) pertained to the powers of the federal government alone! “Congress shall make no law …”—these are the first words of the First Amendment. You will find in this amendment what we have come to call “our guarantee of religious freedom.” Yet, the early constitutions of several states recognized what was virtually a State Church, requiring each locality to provide for and support the public worship of God. It was not until 1818 that Connecticut, in adopting her new state constitution, placed all religious bodies on a equal level. In Massachusetts a tax for support of the Congrega-tionalist Church was imposed. In Massachusetts, religious equality was first fully recognized by a state constitutional amendment of 1833.
The right of a speedy and public trial is provided for in the Sixth Amendment, but this extends only to those who stand accused of crimes against the laws of the United States. In Section 9 of the United States Constitution, we find prohibition against the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, bill of attainder, and ex post facto law. Why then are the same prohibitions included in the very next section (Section 10)? Did our Founding Fathers suddenly slip into redundancy? No, of course not; it was necessary to repeat the section because, as we have already noted, Article 1, Section 10, is the only limitation in the Original Constitution that does not pertain to the federal government. To extend the prohibitions previously mentioned in Section 9 to the states, the Founding Fathers had to declare specifically, as they did in Section 10, that “no State shall …”
The “Bill of Rights” was placed in the Constitution for a very important reason. The Founding Fathers intended to protect the individuals within the sovereign community and their agent, the state, from the natural tendency of a central government to abuse its powers. The fear the “Bill of Rights” sought to alleviate was the fear of oppression from an all-powerful central government. The present federal government is an excellent example of what is to be feared from an all-powerful central government.
There are those who would argue that the religious intolerance in the early New England states is reason enough to include an all-encompassing federal “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution. Yet, it should be remembered that any inequities in the various state constitutions were corrected by the people, which is the proper function of a free society. If corrections are needed in the fundamental law, then it is the people who must make the correction and not a supposedly benevolent, all-powerful, central government. The potential for human oppression is greatly reduced at the local level where the possibility of the political redress of grievances is far greater than it is on a national level. If an error in judgment or a flagrant act of oppression is made on the local level, only a small part of the nation will suffer. But should such an oppressive act issue forth at the national level (which is constantly happening today), then the suffering is immediately transmitted to the entire people, who have little or no hope of effectual redress.
It should always be remembered that legitimate authority arises from the people at the local level in the sovereign community. Whenever government attempts to circumvent the legitimate power of the people, even in the name of good, civil liberty suffers, and the potential for despotism is greatly increased. As the old saying goes, “What has done more harm than the follies of the compassionate?”
The radical change in the form of our original constitutional government is a direct result of the success of the Northern armies in their war of aggression against the Southern people. With military success and the force of bloody bayonets, the Northern philosophy of centralistic federalism became the standard for the new American government. This centralistic philosophy was articulated into its “legal” form by the various Reconstruction acts, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions that are based upon these acts and amendments.
The history of the English-speaking people is one of great regard for the democratic tradition. When reviewing the unconstitutional and radical change in our original constitutional government, we find it evident that the actions of the Northern Congress stand alone as the most brazen acts of legislative tyranny in the history of the English-speaking people! It should be remembered that the effects of these acts have not diminished with the passage of time but continue today as the “legal” excuse for innumerable court orders, guidelines, and federal edicts. Every generation of Southerners since the War for Southern Independence has been forced to live under the penalty imposed upon our people by these illegal and fraudulent acts.
At no time has the Northern majority changed its coercive attitude toward its conquered provinces. The Northern element has been quick to use these acts when it suited their purpose. At other times they have been willing to “put it on the shelf” for the time being. When political necessity again arose in the Northern Congress, these acts have been taken off the shelf, dusted off, and re-applied to the Southern people with great vigor and much self-righteous indignation.
From the end of Reconstruction to the mid-1940s, political confrontation between the North and the South was minimal. The South, to varying degrees, was “left alone.” What this meant was that, as long as the South left the control of the national government in the hands of the Northern element, accepted its own second-class status, and kept in “its place,” then the Northern element graciously allowed the South to maintain nominal control over its area of the country. In exchange the North relented in the active application of the various Reconstruction acts. An unwritten North/South detente developed in which the South was allowed the delusion of self-government when it was allowed to displace the Reconstruction-era state governments. It should be remembered that in all cases the Southern problem has always been handled with the view of what was best for Northern economic and political interests.
The waging of aggressive war against the Southern people was necessary to destroy the idea of popular sovereignty, which, as we have seen, was the very spirit of the Constitutional Republic. Reconstruction was invoked by the Northern Congress against the Southern people to force a radical change in the form of the American national government, thereby destroying the letter of its constitutional law. The active application of Reconstruction legislation was allowed to subside only after the form of the national government was irrevocably changed and it was apparent that the Southern people had no choice but to accept their new status or to continue under the unspeakable horror of Reconstruction. The unspoken detente was kept in effect until the late 1940s. At this time it became politically profitable for the dominant, Northern, liberal element to break the detente and to reinstate the active application of political Reconstruction. The Southern people continue to be at the mercy of the controlling Northern element. The liberal element in the North has reserved unto itself the power to adjust the application of the unspoken detente. The South has no choice. Its conquering masters have assigned it to a second-class political and economic position. The will of the Southern people and the destiny of the Southern nation are of no value to its masters, the powers-that-be in Washington.
The sham of self-government had permeated the political life of the Southern people by the 1940s. By this time most Southerners had accepted the new order and honestly thought that they were in control of their political destiny to the same degree that their predecessors had held before the war. The psychology underlying this self-delusion had its origin in the defeat of the Southern people in the War for Southern Independence. Southerners knew that the South had the constitutional right of self-determination. They knew that the North had absolutely no constitutional justification for invading the South and for coercing its people into accepting a new centralistic government with no limit on the federal government’s power over the states. They knew also that the Southern soldier had fought with high esteem for honor, heroism, and gallantry, fulfilling the demanding code of military chivalry. Knowing all of this, the South could not accept the idea of defeat. Thus, the heroic efforts to reclaim the state government by unseating the Scalawag and Carpetbag government during Reconstruction was overemphasized to the point of claiming a total victory for the South.
Psychologically, a defeated people needed a victory. The success of the Southern people over the Scalawag and Carpetbag regimes provided that victory. This should not be taken as an attempt to belittle the efforts of those responsible for unseating the Scalawags and establishing sane self-government. We must remember that the evil goals of Reconstruction had already been accomplished by the time the Scalawag governments were unseated. The evil goals were accomplished when the original constitutional government was changed from the initial form of a contract between equals to the new form of a centralistic national government having dominant au
thority over the states and the people thereof. This was accomplished by giving the new central government a form of legality by enacting the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and other Reconstruction acts. These actions demonstrated that the dominant Northern element cared very little as to who controlled the Southern state governments. The Northern element had already formed a new centralistic federal government. With its new power, the North could force the Southern people to accept their new position as second-class citizens. Therefore, from the Northern point of view, if the Scalawags could hold on to power in the South, so much the better. But if they could not hold on to power, it mattered not in the least. After all, the North retained the power to enforce its will upon the Southern people; whereas the Southern people, in the words of the Yankee general Philip Sheridan, were left with “nothing but their eyes to cry with!”
The South Was Right Page 21