This Work is written for those Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women who have spent the time in court, paid the price behind bars, survived the beatings, false arrests, and harassment; and those who are victims of patriot(1) remedies, common law court scams, Uniform Commercial Codes, Title 42 suits, and many others. It seems that not a day goes by before a new "silver bullet," "some hot new process" "that's got'em runnin' scared" comes down the road. It may be called by some unfamiliar legal sounding name, like a 'cancellatura,' or it may have a very legal sound, such as a 'Notice of Refusal for Fraud,' 'pro se' litigation, 'The Flag of Peace,' 'Bill of Particulars' and many rescission packages that never affect the public record; and of course, the secular 'jural' societies [which are persona non standi in judicio]. The ignorant, unsuspecting and all too trusting fail to look behind these "processes" at the trail of bodies left behind by these illusions of Law, based on natural reason.
All of these, like so many in the past, will, in a few weeks or months, be seen for what they are. Meanwhile, the people of God will get burned again for their ignorance and continue to suffer for their lack of any real knowledge of Law. Just to avoid any confusion about which Law we refer to, it is God's Law manifested and revealed in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, upon whose shoulder the real and Lawful government rests.
Many are under the gun as they read this and are frustrated and impatient to get to the meat. We understand this. But, the Prolegomena is important for many reasons, of which the most important of all is, understanding how modern government works. Most, if not all Christians in America, have no working or workable knowledge or concept of what constituted government is supposed to be under God. Much has been written about this ignorance and malaise:
After the Civil War the new northern business class developed a new body of anti-governmental ideas. Typically, William Graham Sumner used social Darwinism as the theoretical basis for an attack on government, oblivious of the fascist implications of his program for suppression of the economically unsuccessful.
* * *
Throughout American history, economy has been equated with virtue and spending with sin. This is the hostile intellectual environment in which the American Leviathan has grown up, the bastard offspring of anti-governmentalism and world politics.
* * *
The uneasiness of people about the growth of the government is related to the inadequacy of public explanations of the phenomenon. Public men have risked their necks in the process. They have been denounced as thieves, enemies of the people, spend-thrifts, socialists, communists, and subverters of the Republic, as bit by bit they backed into the future amid warnings of bankruptcy, scandal, and ruin. [*The author recalls President Taft saying fifty years ago that he anticipated with foreboding a future Congress that might spend a billion dollars.]
Americans have been surprised and confused about the growth of their government because they have been watching the wrong set of facts. They have been obsessed with the introverted view of government and did not see the exterior factors that stimulate government most powerfully.
The impact of war on government is evident throughout American history.
Each war enlarged the capacity of the government to do things. Thereafter the enlarged capacity of the government turned out to be too useful to be given up.(2)
For a moment, let us look at the Budget numbers of the Federal government receipts after its wars.
Years Average Annual Receipts War ..% annual increase
1789-1812 $ 869,000 After the Colonial War
1813-1865 3,226,526 War of 1812 371%
1861-1865 32,181,400 Lincoln's War 997% 1866-1898 73,277,090 Pre-Spanish-American War 228%
1898-1900 86,863,000 Spanish-American War 19%
1899-1917 193,626,811 World War I 226%
1918-1945 6,371,213,400 Thru World War II 3,290%
1945-1950 39,645,600,000 Up to the Korean War 622%
1951-1965 62,927,550,000 To the Viet Nam War 159%
1966-1976 197,988,000,000 The Viet Nam War 315%
1977-1987 622,211,675,405 Post Viet Nam 314%(3)
The Chart speaks for itself. Obviously, the Humanist knows the significance of the Biblical mandate to build: line upon line, precept upon precept, etc. This is how they build budgets and the Tower of Babel. Note that the greatest increases came under two Presidents; Lincoln (a 997% increase) in Federal Receipts, and Roosevelt with a whopping 3,290% increase in Federal Receipts.
We need only add that the above do not reflect the beginning of the P.B.D.S.(4), which Lincoln started with a deficit of $2.7 billion deficit at the end of his war
"... What does the budget say? Normally about 75 percent of the federal budget is spent for defense and defense related activities. The ratio of defense to non-defense expenditures holds in Republican as well as Democratic administrations, in wartime as well as peace. Congress passes defense appropriation bills by overwhelming bipartisan votes -- not like other appropriations. How can we say that we know what government is, if we do not listen to what the budget says? [*Indeed this testifies to the fact that Christians do not follow the Scriptural prohibition against putting their faith in man.]
Defense is the biggest industry in the country. Education is second. That is what the oyster is like, hard on the outside and soft on the inside.
The most potent stimulus to the growth of government comes from the outside, and a hundred governments can generate tensions for which there are no easily imagined physical equivalents. [*In one estimate, 14,513 wars were fought in the past five thousand years.](5)
It is true that the government is very much more than a defense organization. It is extremely multi-functional. Nobody has ever established a government to lay a sidewalk, but once people have a government they find that it can be used to do many things. Governments pick up a multitude of assignments because as guardians of the community they have the prestige, the organization, and the resources to do things that no one else can do.
Among all of the other advantages they have, governments, unlike business corporations, do not need to make a profit [*because of their inherent taxing power]. So governments are used to doing most of the unprofitable work of the community. The great administrative establishment developed for military purposes can be used for civil purposes, as the Army engineers were used to dig the Panama canal [*and they were used for a number of domestic civil projects, the building of the Sepulveda dam project in the San Fernando Valley in California for example]. The civil functions of government expand with the defense establishment, because the general capacity of the government is enlarged every time the defense organization expands.
Thus the tensions that make governments also make governments grow.
It follows from the foregoing discussion that it is impossible to understand politics until we know what government is. The introverted view of government confuses all concepts of politics. If we misunderstand government we are likely to misconceive the whole game. The cause of government does not cease working once a government has been formed, and a cause potent enough to make a government is strong enough to play a role in its politics.
* * *
[*Thus] This growth has taken place in spite of a structure that hobbled and handcuffed it [*The previous Constitution]. The fact that the government has survived and has grown powerful is due to factors not to be found in the language of the Constitution nor the political theory behind it.
* * *
The theories of politics growing out of the introverted view of government neglect the role of world tensions in the formation, strength, growth, and behavior of government. Charles Beard, starting with an introverted view of government, saw no difficulty in explaining the work of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a successful effort of the commercial and financial interests in the country to take over the government. Beard neglected the likelihood that the hard-headed revolutionaries who organized the Convention wanted a government able to defend the new country in its infancy. The sleeper in the new constitution was the war power."(6)
The new war power is open and obvious for all who have eyes to see. It is this war power that is examined herein. It is a full-orbed power today, but it was not the war power delegated to the office holders of government by the original Constitution. It is power based on presuppositions that are utterly separate, distinct, foreign and strange to the presuppositions of the Framers.
This work gives a historical overview of what has happened to Our system of laws since the early 1800's, and it documents the true nature of the current "legal" system in America that must be understood before one studies the remedies in Parts Two and Three. It was, after all, the change in the legal system that permitted annual Federal Receipts to go out of control after Lincoln's War.
The Glossary deals with the meaning of specific words and phrases as used by the system. We may use the same words as those in the system, but, Our meaning and the public's perception of the same words' meaning - are never the same. The Reader must know the difference so that he or she does not argue at cross presuppositions and thus make the same mistakes as thousands of others in the past.
The system used by the provisional governments today is the old Roman Imperial system of law. If the Reader does not understand the meaning and significance of this, he or she will not understand why we've written this book, why we encourage Christian reform and reconstruction in Christian Jural Societies under Christ Jesus, or why Non-Statutory Abatements have been so successful over the past three and a half years.
In this Fourth Edition of the Book of the Hundreds, removing 'Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ' from the Abatements will result in failure, and rightly and deservedly so, for Law does not exist without the sanctioning Authority of its Sovereign. And if the Law does not exist without the Authority of its Sovereign, then the protection afforded by that Law does not exist.
Thus, it is suggested that you study and know Part One before your first popular assembly to form a Christian Jural Society. And, most certainly before you write and serve your first Non-Statutory Abatement. Especially is this true in this Edition. You must know the Gospel of Christ and see it as a manual of Law to see through the 'illusions of the world' and to find your way out of Babylon. We will all see beyond all reasonable doubt, that "without Christ ye can do nothing."
We pray earnestly that you will see that you are not alone, and that we at the Press are not criticizing your present viewpoint or the quality of your Christian knowledge and commitment to Christ. It is our earnest hope you will either verify what is in these pages, or disprove it with solid proof of the same or improved quality to what is offered here, all for the edification and understanding of the Christian church.
Many ideas led up to and ended in Lincoln's War Against All Christian States. They were anti-Christian and constituted a radical shift from the Christian Customs and Usages that founded America. In summary, these were:
a. A decline of the intellectual power of Christian thought and work, and a lapse into subjective emotionalism and pietism, that manifest itself as a kind of feminization of the church.
b. The rise of Humanism to fill the intellectual void left by retreating Christians, that ended in the loss of Christian control in all areas of life - by 1860. For example, between the Colonial War and Lincoln's War, Christians lost control of more than one hundred fifty of the top universities and colleges.
c. The decline of cottage industry and rise of big business as small de-centralized manufacturing in the home and small shops was replaced by massive centralized manufacturing in factories. The demand for more capital to finance bigger business led to an increase in the number and size of commercial banks and stock corporations, and enormous pressure on the Federal and State governments to enact laws that would assist the growth of commerce. The consequent rise in Federal power and spending meant the decline of local self-government. Voids in leadership were filled by the State and Federal powers, but in order to do this, a change in the Constitutional idea of civil government changed from a consociation of Christian states to a national union wherein the federal power is supreme over all others.
d. The centralization of power in the President was uncontrollable because of the clear lack of specific Constitutional restraints. Congress acquiesced and aided Northern commercial interests, crippled by Jefferson's seizure of power in New England. The Northern secessionist movement, however, needed the South to secede as well in order to get the two-thirds vote necessary to end the binding effect of the Constitution.
e. Lincoln took the lack of restraints on Presidential power to its logical conclusion, and seized total power when Congress adjourned sine die on March 28th, 1861. This ended the original de jure government under the Constitution. No one, especially the Christian church, did anything to stop Lincoln, who initiated the War against the South without the slightest Constitutional, legal, or lawful authority. He created the debt funding system used by every President since, to increase the national debt and fund a further expansion of Federal power - while in bankruptcy. This, coupled with the Reconstruction Acts as continuing war measures, have produced the current Martial Rule government with its administrative codes, rules, regulations, etc., and culminated in the present Federal power.
f. After Lincoln's New World model was firmly in place, every President after him found the allure of his new powers too strong to resist. It appears that none sought to roll back these powers and there came about the usual power conflicts between the President and Congress which always seemed to settle on the side of the President. With the advent of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a quantum increase in the President's power took place and our current government, the very perfection of the New World Order, was completed.
g. The Christian church went corporate and thereby placed itself in an inferior position which meant that the New Church was powerless to raise its voice against the new government created by Lincoln and continually sustained by every administration and party from that day to this.
Lincoln's War was the bloodiest war in the history of the several united States of America. He engineered the destruction of the last remnants of the Christian idea of law and civil government. He replaced God's Law with Caesar's law and re-installed the old Roman Imperial system. The brutally excessive, unnecessary, unlawful, anti-Christian, and unconstitutional acts of Lincoln set all the precedents needed by Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a permanent state of national emergency amounting to a state of war.
It is not our intent herein to offer an exhaustive history, but to present the evidence that relates directly to the current system of 'law' used in America.
We present life to you as a battle, and the figure is aptly used. It is a battle; God has made it so... The clash of opposing forces all about us makes it a battle. The din of conflict fills this whole universe. All intelligences are engaged. On opposite sides are massed the good and bad angels. The great principle of wrong constantly antagonizes the mightier principle of right.
These aspects of the conflict we do not see; they are spiritual and invisible. But enough of this tug of war we do see to make the battle intensely real, and the necessity for taking part in it both clear and urgent.... a generation ago, the crisis of war sent a line of division through this great Republic. Everybody then took sides. The heart in every case went one way or the other. Those who seemed to be neutral were not so in reality, and some of these had a harder time, with less to compensate them, than those who stood up boldly for their convictions. So in the battle of life. Our first duty, upon entering the arena, is to determine which side we will espouse.
That each must serve on one side or the other, is beyond question. Not only must the heart incline toward one or other of these two sides, but to one or the other will the service of the life be given. ... this conflict is not confined to a few localities; it is raging constantly all about us, and, whether he will or not, every man has a part in it. ...
The undertow of life is toward evil and ruin. To lose the good and secure the evil, you need only to neglect to choose the good. The sad wail of all lost souls, and of all ruined lives is like the never-ceasing lament of that man who lost his reason because one night, as the express came dashing along, he neglected to turn the switch, and thus allowed the train, with its living freight, to dash forward to an awful destruction, his bitter deprecation, until he died, saying, 'O that I had! O that I had!' Yes, it would indeed have been better had he done his duty, inestimably better; but he had not, and hence the frightful consequences.(7)
The premise in this book has never changed, and is only confirmed by new and expanding research by the King's Men in these several states. Our object is not to bring down the house of Caesar, for that will happen according to God's plan; but to leave to our Posterity a record upon which they can, in accordance with the Will of God, stand in His presence worthily claiming all the Inheritance Christ has given us and them.
To many Christians, the facts in these pages will be shocking and hard to swallow. This is the reason we offer so much evidence. To help your understanding we must begin with what is the Source, Cause, and Origin of Lawful Government from a Good and Lawful Christian perspective. This we can gather from the records of those who landed on the shores of America in the early seventeenth century and carved out a government most fit for themselves as they found it in God's Word.
Riches to Rags: The Decline of the Power of the Church
We begin with a short statement of what early Christians in America believed about the nature of civil government. This starting point is necessary in order to set in stark relief the changes that came later.
For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.(8)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(9)
Read carefully part of a speech by John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay:
The great questions that have troubled the country, are about the authority of the magistrates and the liberty of the people. It is yourselves who have called us to this office, and being called by you, we have our authority from God, in way of an ordinance, such as hath the image of God eminently stamped upon it, the contempt and violation whereof hath been vindicated with examples of divine vengeance. I entreat you to consider, that when you choose magistrates, you take them from among yourselves, men subject to like passions as you are. Therefore when you see infirmities in us, you should reflect upon your own, and that would make you bear the more with us, and not be severe censurers of the failings of your magistrates, when you have continual experience of the like infirmities in yourselves and others. We account him a good servant, who breaks not his covenant. The covenant between you and us is the oath you have taken of us, which is to this purpose, that we shall govern you and judge your causes by the rules of God's Laws and our own, according to our best skill. When you agree with a workman to build you a ship or house, etc., he undertakes as well for his skill as for his faithfulness, for it is his profession, and you pay him for both. But when you call one to be a magistrate, he doth not profess nor undertake to have sufficient skill for that office, nor can you furnish him with gifts, etc., therefore you must run the hazard of his skill and ability. But if he fail in faithfulness, which by his oath he is bound unto, that he must answer for. If it fall out that the case be clear to common apprehension, and the rule clear also, if he transgress here, the error is not in the skill, but in the evil of the will: it must be required of him. But if the case be doubtful, or the rule doubtful, to men of such understanding and parts as your magistrates are, if your magistrates should err here, yourselves must bear it.
For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. But this, man as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to do evil as well as to good [*Knowledge of Good and Evil]. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with [*Christian] authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority [*of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ]. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. [*"Without restraint we are all worse" (than beasts).] This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal, it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions, amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this, is not authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. The woman's own choice makes such a man her husband; yet being so chosen, he is her lord, and she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not of bondage; and a true wife accounts her subjection her honor and freedom, and would not think her condition safe and free, but in her subjection to her husband's authority. Such is the liberty of church under the authority of Christ, her king and husband; His yoke is so easy and sweet to her as a bride's ornaments; and if through frowardness or wantonness, etc., she shake it off, at any time, she is at no rest in her spirit, until she take it up again; and whether her lord smiles upon her, and embraceth her, she apprehends the sweetness of his love in all, and is refreshed, supported, and instructed by every such dispensation of his authority over her. On the other side, ye know who they are that complain of this yoke, and say, let us break their bands, etc., we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is right in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God's assistance) to hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God; so shall your liberties be preserved, in upholding the honor and power of authority amongst you….(10)
Winthrop's speech has been called the greatest ever speech on Christian government. We do well to take to heart all he says. Later, we will return to his writings when we discuss Christian Jural Societies.
In the beginning, there was no Sovereign in America but Christ and the church was free. It never saw a need to enter into an alliance with the State by incorporating, although some early charitable corporations (11) did follow Christians to America, the churches themselves did not incorporate until much later.(12)
During its first century in America, the Christian church drew the faithful from England and Europe and the growth of Christian dominion was phenomenal. The church in America had to resort to Scripture for everything it did because there was no other real authority in America to whom the church could turn for leadership but Christ.
By the end of the seventeenth century, the Salem witch trials had dampened the spirit of the founders and England began to exert more control over her very profitable colonies in the New World. Many Puritans began to doubt their missionary purpose in America and an early form of withdrawal from "worldly affairs," called pietism, began to set in. This was aggravated by the very real perception that the Christian colonies were being over-run by non-believers and heresy.
About this time, the Christian church began to ally itself with Colonial governments and some began to incorporate. But, the Great Awakening put a temporary brake to this.
"The Great Awakening gave rise to popular forms of church government and thus accustomed people to self-government in their religious habits. The alliance of church and state, the identification of religious with civil institutions, was found to be detrimental to the cause of religion. Wherever revivalism spread, especially in Virginia, Baptists increased, colliding with the moribund establishments that feebly relied on political support for their defense. In Virginia, for example, the activities of itinerant preachers who refused to list their meeting houses led, between 1768 and 1776 to the imprisonment of nearly fifty for 'disturbing the peace' or refusing to give bond to keep the peace in the future."(13)
Where incorporation was allowed, however, it was not for everyone.
"During the colonial period religious societies, if part of the established church, had been freely incorporated by royal governors and colonial assemblies. It was more difficult for other denominations. Religious bodies were the first kind of organization to receive the special treatment of the general corporation statutes, and not merely because of the number of charter applications they occasioned. The device of a general corporation statute was seen as a means of implementing ... equal rights for all churches, an essential feature of the political philosophy of the new nation."(14)
The Great Awakening of the early 1740's, involved important Christian leaders such as Jonathon Edwards, and great preachers from England, such as George Whitfield. But, the revival did not bring about long-term change in the church, but, it did put backbone in the resistance to the ever increasing strangle-hold of the King and Parliament on the colonies. This resistance led, of course, to the Colonial War and the framing of the Constitution for the united States of America.(15)
The cost of the Colonial War on the Christian church was devastating in that many Pastors, teachers, and other leaders of the church were murdered in cold blood by the British, if they were captured. Remember, the British were aided in their efforts by seizing the official rolls of church corporations in which they found the Christians they were after. The effect of the genocide, however, was to further deplete the intellectual quality of Christian thought. This aspect of American history has been called the Genocide of the Black Brigade, without whom, the Colonials would have lost the war.
By the early 1800's, the power of the Christian church was in clear decline in many ways.
First, we have already mentioned the growing tendency of the churches to use the power of the State by incorporating. Except for New England Baptists led by Isaac Backus, and Virginians under John Leland, nearly all church denominations began to incorporate, primarily at the urging of the pastors. Backus tells us why the pastors led the way.
"...To use the state to collect salaries [*for pastors] was as wrong for the Baptists as for the Congregationalists.(16) [*And further that] " ... incorporation acknowledged the right of the state to decide which churches could and which could not be chartered. In addition, incorporation gave all persons in the congregation the right to vote on building or repairing a meeting-house as well as paying the minister's salary. The unconverted members might then be able to out vote the converted, thereby allowing the worldlings to lord it over the saints. Baptist societies, acting like Congregational parishes, would face the same bitter conflict between church and congregation.
"Some Baptists argued that incorporation was necessary to hold property or endowment funds in the name of the church. But Backus pointed out that the law [*and God's Law] gave the deacons, or any other suitably appointed persons, the power 'to receive and hold estates or donations which are given for religious purposes, and to manage the same at the direction and for the good of the church or society.' This device was wholly sufficient to meet the needs of the Baptists in this respect..."(17)
Second, was the problem of segregation in the churches which, from the beginning, in both the North and South, were integrated, in a narrow sense. Of interest is Weathersford's study.(18) But,
Let us start with the fact that there was integration of Negroes and whites in Christian churches from the beginning of slavery until a year following the Civil War. ....The First Baptist Church in Norfolk, Virginia, was a mixture of black and white in 1800. White members withdrew in 1817 to form the Cumberland Street Baptist Church, a mixed church thus being parent to a white church.(19) 'In Richmond…numbers of free Negroes attended the white First Baptist Church (1802), ... which became exclusively Negro (now First African Baptist Church) in 1841, when another building was erected for whites alone.'(20) In Georgia ...in 1750, Negro slaves were allowed or compelled to attend Christian services under the direction of a Protestant minister. ...On the roll of members of the Sardis Baptist Church, Wilkes County, (Georgia) there was a 'list of the Black Brethren in fellowship from 1805-1824....''(21) ... there were white and mixed congregations served by Negro ministers in the days of slavery. In Virginia, for example, the Gloucester Baptist Church (white), losing its white pastor by death, called Rev. William Lemon in 1776, 'not white in complexion though he had been washed in the laver of regeneration.'(22) .
[But] ... however many and casual were the physical and social relationships which prevailed between Negroes and whites in the South in ante-bellum days ... they prevailed in a master-slave setting. The associations were paternalistic and largely contemptuous of the personality of the Negro; the Negro remained subordinate, subservient, and dependent.
* * *
Secondly,... [*To prevent a Negro conspiracy] The Laws Concerning Servants and Slaves, a revision for the colony of North Carolina read: 'Be it further enacted, That if any master, or owner of Negroes, or slaves, or any other person or persons whatsoever in the government shall permit or suffer any Negro or Negroes to build on their or either of their lands or any part thereof any house under pretense of a meeting house upon account of worship or upon any pretense whatsoever, and shall not suppress and hinder them, he, she, or they so offending shall for every default forfeit and pay fifty pounds, ...'(23) Such stringent codes were later ignored or relaxed and Negroes were permitted the right to assemble in worship, but usually under the watchful eye of at least one white attendant. But after the Vesey Plot in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1822, and the Nat Turner Rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831, the assembling of purely Negro congregations and the use of Negro preachers were forbidden. 'The Christianizing influence had seemingly been too effective. Negro preachers had 'distorted' the Bible into a guide to freedom [*just as the white colonists did against King George III], and the safety of the institution [*of slavery] was seen to hinge on the purging of such 'heresy' from the minds of slaves. The legislature [*of Virginia] decreed that 'no slave, free Negro, or mulatto shall preach, or hold any meeting for religious purposes either day or night.'(24)
So what appears on the surface to be 'the very best tradition of the old South' proves upon examination to be a diplomacy by which the Christian could ease his conscience by giving the Negro the Gospel while at the same time preventing an insurrection against slavery. But it could hardly be expected that a church, preaching a gospel which declared the Negro essentially inferior to the white man and slavery a divine decree and using a Biblical basis for such arguments, would at the same time welcome and entertain the Negro even on the basis of spiritual equality.
What is of more interest to us is ... that segregation of races had its beginning in the church quite as early as its emergence in secular society. ... One of the earliest dates gives the distinction to Savannah by George Liele in 1779. This church later became a mixed church, then reverted to being a Negro church, and thus became the beginning of Negro Baptist work in Georgia.(25) ...An important point is that while the South ... continued to include its slaves in common worship, the North began to segregate free Negroes from whites in public worship during Colonial days. Where a master-slave relationship did not exist to maintain status between Negroes and whites within the same church, artificial distinctions arose; and they arose first, not between masters and slaves, but between whites and freedmen.
C. Vann Woodward, in a book called The Strange Career of Jim Crow, has firmly established the fact that segregation, as we know it today, is of rather recent origin. He cites a series of interesting and significant facts: 'More than a decade was to pass after Redemption (the end of reconstruction) before the first Jim Crow law was to appear upon the law books of a Southern state.'(26) In 1879 Sir George Campbell, a member of Parliament, traveling in the South, commented 'with particular surprise on the equality with which the Negroes shared public facilities.'(27) In 1898 the Charleston, South Carolina, News and Courier ridiculed the suggestion that the Negro be segregated, pointing out the impracticalities involved; but within ten years after the dawn of the present century nearly all the Southern states had perfected in custom and law an almost complete ostracism of the Negro. The earliest date established by Woodward for the beginning of racial segregation in the South was 1877, with the withdrawal of the Federal troops and 'the acquiescence of the rest of the country in the South's demand that the whole problem be left to the disposition of the dominant Southern white people.'(28) His thesis, well argued, is that systematized social segregation as we know it today is a relatively new thing in American culture.
What needs to be emphasized, however, is that the segregation of the races had occurred in the Christian churches at least as early as it had appeared in its secular forms. Woodward is aware of the fact that the racial division of the Protestant churches had already come about before the end of Reconstruction, '(29) But he is referring here not to segregation within the churches but to the separation of the churches. What we must see is that discrimination against the Negro, free and slave, had begun in the North and in the South nearly a century earlier and that the 'voluntary' withdrawal of the Negro had been forced by the embarrassments to which he had been put in mixed churches, an evidence that the church did not merely inherit or absorb the patterns of an evil society but in fact helped provide those patterns...
* * *
Long before the little signs--'White Only' and 'Colored'--appeared in the public utilities they had appeared in the church. ... In 1795 the John Street Methodist Episcopal Church in New York City, a mixed church including Negroes under the leadership of a former slave, Peter Williams, who had purchased his freedom through the church's aid, withdrew to form the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. [But] ...as the Negro membership grew in number, education, spirit, and independence, the color line was introduced. Negroes were assigned pews in the rear marked 'B.M.,' meaning black members, and there were discriminations at communion and baptismal font.'(30)
The point is to show that the problems between whites and blacks in both the North and South had existed in the Christian church before they existed in society. From its own history and the teaching of Scripture and God's Law, the church should have known better and acted accordingly.
The church should have known what the historic church and the Scripture has always taught.
Now, there is no distinction between Jew or Greek, between bond or free, and further, the church should have championed the right of all men to be free after they had served six years as a slave. Scripture itself demands the death penalty for any slave-master to hold a Christ-believing slave beyond six years, and such a slave must be compensated for his time in slavery.
Instead, the Christian church, once it had become inundated with non-believers, it compromised its basic doctrines and the Law of God.
Third, was the problem of church-state relations in the states themselves. No nation in history has ever fallen solely from the invasion of a foreign power. It fell first, from an invasion of the mind from within, to prepare the way for the final onslaught, from without. To effectively conquer any people, first seek to change thinking before taking action overtly. While this approach takes longer, its effects last far longer. To see this all one need do is look at the legislation of record to see what changes were being wrought right under the nose of the church. First, in Virginia:
An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
Section 1. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind force that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of Legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and who powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinion, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity to be called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course a judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Section 2. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or Ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Section 3. And, though we well know this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the Acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this Act to be irrevocable, would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any Act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such Act will be an infringement of natural right.(31)
Note the change of the Source of the right from God to nature -- from the Highest Source to the earth. Also note the apparent lack of mentioning the Great Mediator, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. Without connection to God through Him, there is no Inheritance, and government is no longer on His shoulder. This is a sign of rebellion -- the children no longer recognized their Father. The church should have had and held the political sway at this early date. The point is, when the Source changes, so does the law. Scripture puts it this way:
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.(32)
The converse is, "where the Spirit of the Lord is not, there is slavery." A simple premise, with a significant impact in Law. This is a core idea of this part and will be developed as we continue. Remember the maxim of Scripture; "As a man thinketh so is he."
Fourth, is the problem of denominationalism - within the context of law. The significance is, the law is based upon Christianity, not on denominations. The maxim of law is, "the cause of the church is a public cause." But, when the church becomes a denomination, its cause is no longer public, but private. Thus, it no longer pursues a Christian purpose, but a denominational (creating division) one. Scripture says;
"He that is not with Me is against Me; and, he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth abroad.(33)
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye, all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but, that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;"(34)
Just to make sure that the specter of ecumenism is not raised against us, we know that there can never be a complete unity of all the different Christians forms (denominations) of worship. That is not our point. Our point is not to force a union of churches into a mega-church, but to point out the importance of being non-denominational in works, and thereby nullify the presumptions in Law that:
• one is something other than purely Christian.
• that one is engaging in 'willful intent' (a criminal act), and
• the presumption of 'privacy' in law (separating the denomination from the Body of Christ)
• the denomination has a "legal personality," that is prosecutable.
By conquering the will to be prideful, one eliminates the obvious denominational trappings and then appears - for purposes of Law - to be non-denominational and thus can take full advantage of standing in Christ and God's Law, and eliminates the binding restrictions of man's law. We cannot go into details of this here, for the subject is beside our point. (For an extended explanation of this problem for the church, see(35)).
What happens when a Church disguises itself as Christian in the form of a denomination? The Law sees the Church as a denomination, separate from Christ and Christianity and Christendom. The Church thus, cannot avail itself of the protection of God's Law, i.e., the asylum state, but must be judged by man's law - as a denomination, i.e., as a fiction of law, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."(36) Further, numerous verses of Scripture speak to this issue. "He that honoreth not the Son [*but his denomination], honoreth not the Father which hath sent him."(37) And, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one or love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon"(38) And so on.
Last, we have mentioned above and will mention again, the problem of creeping pietism within the church. Do not confuse piety with pietism.
PIETY, n. [L. pietas, from pius, or its root, probably a contracted word.] 1. Piety in principle, is a compound of veneration or reverence of the Supreme Being and love of his character, or veneration accompanied with love; and piety in practice, is the exercise of these affections in obedience to his will and devotion to his service.(39)
Pietism, on the other hand is, "Extremely strict devotion, or affectation of piety."(40)
In practice, pietism separates the inner and outer man and places each under a different alleged authority. Thus, Christians commonly assume that they are "born again" on the inside, but on the outside, "We're forced to live in the world by man's law." In fact, this is merely a convenient excuse to justify antinomianism, and it works hand in glove with 'we live under grace, not under law.'
The point is, in practice, pietism is always accompanied by withdrawal from pressing the Crown Rights of King Jesus in every area of life and giving up Christian Dominion over many aspect of life, whether we speak of Law, Science, Art, or Engineering.
Thus, in conclusion, by the beginning of the early 1800's, and in some cases much earlier, it was already evident that the Christian church was already in decline, being corrupted from within its doctrine, and compromising with the world outside.
The Rise of Humanism
As the church retreated in principle (theologically) and in fact, the Humanists began to advance, and since the non-believing mind always resorts to the centralization of power in the hands of the State, they began almost immediately to exploit the lack of controls on the President's power in the Constitution. The obvious way in which to do this was to exploit the emergency powers of the President.
One of the first exercises of emergency power came in the summer of 1792 when the people of western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas began to oppose Federal excise taxes on whiskey. Anticipating rebellious activity, Congress enacted legislation providing for the calling forth of the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.(41) Section 3 of this statute required that a presidential proclamation be issued to warn insurgents to cease their activity; if hostilities persisted, the militia would be activated. On August 7, 1794, Washington issued the proclamation, then followed up by commanding forces to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.(42) Later, he pardoned two leaders of the insurgents who had been tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged.(43)
More emergency authority was granted the President in 1798 in The Alien Act:
By the Alien Act of 1798 Congress delegated to the President virtually unlimited power to "direct the conduct" of nationals of hostile countries whenever the United States should be engaged in a declared war or its territory threatened with invasion, and this enactment, somewhat amended, still remains on the statute books. Indeed, for nearly one hundred and twenty years it was almost the only provision of its kind.(44) The Alien Act obligated the President to make a proclamation to the public declaring a state of war or threatened invasion and this action entitled him to powers in the statute.
Jefferson and Madison enlarged the scope of Presidential discretion. Jefferson took action in May 1803, to buy the Louisiana Territory from the French subject to congressional approval. The Constitution and statutes provided no specific authority or congressional guidance on the purchase. As early as January 1803, Jefferson wrote Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin that, "There is no constitutional difficulty as to the acquisition of territory, and whether, when acquired, it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution as it now stands, will become a question of expediency."(45)
Note what Jefferson is really saying is, he made the Louisiana Purchase(46) because it was 'expedient.' At the use of the word "expediency" Christians should have been alarmed -- note John 11:49-50 and 18:14. In his Third Annual Message to Congress (Oct. 17, 1803) he gave the reasons for the purchase:
Congress witnessed, at their last session, the extraordinary agitation produced in the public mind by the suspension of our right of deposit at the port of New Orleans, no assignment of another place having been made according to treaty. They were sensible that the continuance of that privation would be more injurious to our nation than any consequences which could flow from any mode of redress, but reposing just confidence in the good faith of the government whose officer had committed the wrong, friendly and reasonable representations were resorted to, and the right of deposit was restored.
Previous, however, to this period, we had not been unaware of the danger to which our peace would be perpetually exposed while so important a key to the commerce of the western country remained under foreign power. Difficulties, too, were presenting themselves as to the navigation of other streams, which, arising within our territories, pass through those adjacent. Propositions had, therefore, been authorized for obtaining, on fair conditions, the sovereignty of New Orleans, and of other possessions in that quarter interesting to our quiet, to such extent as was deemed practicable; and the provisional appropriation of two millions of dollars, to be applied and accounted for by the president of the United States, intended as part of the price, was considered as conveying the sanction of Congress to the acquisition proposed. The enlightened government of France saw, with just discernment, the importance to both nations of such liberal arrangements as might best and permanently promote the peace, friendship, and interests of both; and the property and sovereignty of all Louisiana, which had been restored to them, have on certain conditions been transferred to the United States by instruments bearing date the 30th of April last. When these shall have received the constitutional sanction of the senate, they will without delay be communicated to the representatives also, for the exercise of their functions, as to those conditions which are within the power vested by the constitution in Congress. While the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters secure an independent outlet for the produce of the western States and an uncontrolled navigation through their whole course free from collision with other powers and the dangers to our peace from that source, the fertility of the country, its climate and extent, promise in due season important aids to our treasury, an ample provision for our posterity, and wide-spread field for the blessings of freedom and equal laws.
With the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary government of the country; for its incorporation into our Union; for rendering the change of government a blessing to our newly-adopted brethren; for securing to them the rights of conscience and of property; for confirming to the Indian inhabitants their occupancy and self-government, establishing friendly and commercial relations with them, and for ascertaining the geography of the country acquired. Such materials for your information, relative to its affairs in general, as a short space of time has permitted me to collect, will be laid before you when the subject shall be in a state for your consideration.
Similarly, President Madison's efforts toward and subsequent proclamation regarding the United States possession of West Florida could, for reasons of maintaining national security and sovereignty, be regarded as an emergency action. Madison's proclamation read in part: "Whereas a crisis has at length arrived subversive of the order of things under the Spanish authorities, whereby a failure of the United States to take the said territory into its possession may lead to events ultimately contravening the views of both parties, whilst in the meantime the tranquility and security of our adjoining territories are endangered and new facilities given to violations of our revenue and commercial laws of those prohibiting the introduction of slaves.(47)
The Federal power acquired no title to land in Florida or Louisiana, only a custodial interest, waiting for proper claimants, i.e., Good and Lawful Christian people to occupy the land, form a government, etc. This is the only Lawful way a government can be formed, via a Christian people who can acquire, display, and evidence a lineage traceable to the Tree of Life and the government resting on Christ's shoulder:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.(48)
The State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory. As this one civil person consists of all the citizens, so its property consists of all the individual property of the citizens. It is una persona, unicum patrimonium. This unity of the person and property of the state is expressed by the Common Law maxim, that all lands were originally granted out by the sovereign [*God, our Father, through His Son, Jesus the Christ], and are therefore holden, either mediately or immediately, in fee. In apprehension of [*Christian and Biblical] law, the [*Christian] state holds the soil of the whole territory as one estate [*in Christ].(49)
Without that evidence, the government is not Lawful, but is a usurper of Christ's Kingdom -- His church and state -- which is the Inheritance of our Father. Governor Winthrop quoted earlier said as much.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance.(50)
Keep in mind this verse when we cover the court decisions concerning the nature of martial law. Keep in mind the religious liberty act above, for martial rule is also a form of 'religious' expression.
Emergency statutes in the Wars of 1812 and 1847(51) dealt with shipping, trading with the enemy, import regulation, foreign vessel control in U.S. waters, and compensation for property lost and destroyed during military service.
In the War of 1812, a stewardship view of Presidential authority was argued before the Supreme Court,(52) that justified emergency actions by the Chief Executive. Corwin observed:
As early as 1818 it ... the Court ... had, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a common law right to sue on a bill of exchange endorsed to the Treasurer of the United States;(53) and a few years later the broad general doctrine had been laid down "that the United States, being a body politic, as an incident to their general sovereignty, have a capacity to enter into contracts" "within the general sphere of their constitutional powers" through the instrumentality of the appropriate executive department "whenever such contracts…are not forbidden by law"(54) In the latter case, moreover, the Court had listened to argument by the Attorney General that in the performance of the trust enjoined on him by the "take care" clause, the President "not only may, but…is bound to avail himself of every appropriate means not forbidden by law;" and, while the Court does not avert to this contention, the immediate and inevitable result of its holding was the location in the executive department of the power that it ascribed to the United States Government in its corporate capacity.(55)
The Court cannot inquire into the exercise of Executive discretionary authority because Mandamus does not lie in such cases. Mandamus lies only in enforcing ministerial duties. Mandamus is never used, and can never be used, to enforce an act where discretion of the officer is involved:
The execution of a power can be compelled only where the power is mandatory, or is a power in trust;(56) that is a power held in trust, without any discretion as to its exercise, and in which the donee has no beneficial interest, will be enforced in equity in conformity with the trust, although not executed by the donee of the power. Thus where there is a power given to trustees to sell property and apply the proceeds upon trusts, and the trustees die without executing the power, the court will order a sale, and compel the heirs to join in the conveyance.(57) A court of equity will not execute or control a discretionary power.(58)
...Wilkes was not acting here in a private capacity and for private purposes; but, .. the responsible duties he was performing were imposed upon him by the government as a public officer....those duties were not voluntarily sought or assumed, but met and discharged in the routine of his honorable and gallant profession, and under high responsibilities for any omission or neglect on his part, instead of being a volunteer, as in most of the cases of collectors and sheriff's made liable.(59). Now, in respect to those compulsory duties, ... a public officer, invested with certain discretionary powers, never has been, and never should be, made answerable for any injury when acting within the scope of his authority, and not influenced by malice, corruption, or cruelty.
Nor will a mandamus issue to such an officer, if he is intrusted with discretion over the subject matter.(60)
Thus, a Ministerial Act is:
One in which a person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done.(61)
A Ministerial Duty is:
One regarding which nothing is left to discretion ... imposed by law, and arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist.(62) It arises when an individual has a legal interest in its performance that neglect of performance becomes a wrong to such individual.(63)
Thus, it is up to you to put yourself into the proper set of facts that removes discretion from the officer, and allows him to act ministerially. The Strictly Ministerial Duty is:
One that is absolute and imperative, requiring neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.(64)
The Ministerial Office is:
One which gives the officer no discretion as to the matter to be done, and requires him to obey mandates of a superior.(65) It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by a deputy, while a ministerial office may.(66)
The Ministerial Officer is:
One whose duties are purely ministerial, as distinguished from executive, legislative, or judicial functions, requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not involving the exercise of judgment or discretion.(67)
All ministerial offices, duties, etc., are political questions, that relate directly to the control of government officers, and come under the people's authority whose court is the superior court of the county, (68) the at-Law court in which writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, etc., are heard. In all other cases, changes in the conduct of a ministerial duty or office requires legislative action that controls all political questions. Thus, when it involves a Constitutional office:
The Constitutional Convention is the representative of sovereignty only in a very qualified sense, and for the specific purpose, and with the restricted authority, to put in proper form the questions of amendment upon which the People are to pass; but the changes in the fundamental law of the State must come from the People themselves.(69)
Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative [*political], and not a judicial question(70).
The courts are not the guardians of the rights of the people of the State, unless those rights are secured by some constitutional provision which comes within the judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but the courts cannot assume their rights.(71)
When the legislature, within the powers conferred by the constitution, has declared the public policy, and fixed the rights of the people by statute, the courts cannot declare a different policy or fix different rights. In this regard the legislature is supreme, and the presumption is that it will do no wrong, and will pass no unjust laws. The remedy, if any is needed, is with the people and not with the courts.(72)
Note the distinctions in 'S'tate and 's'tate, above. What the court says does not apply to county superior courts, the court in which Good and Lawful Christians determine questions of Law (based on God's Law.) and fact, in the cases brought before them for adjudication:
By the word State is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general.(73)
Good and Lawful Christian people, in where ever they dwell, temporarily or permanently, whether organized as a government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state.(74)
It [*the word "state"] may mean an organized political community.(75)
States before Lincoln were political societies with Christianity as the paramount Law; not corporations under the Roman Imperial Law. Christian Jural Societies are similar political societies but the Source, Cause, Origin, and Law are radically different. This is obvious if we look at the land question.
The Supreme Court cannot look into the affairs of the other two branches of government because: One, branches are co-equal under their organic law; and, Two, the other departments are political in nature. The only ones who can inquire into the affairs of the Federal government are those who create the offices, i.e., those with the Truth in Law -- Good and Lawful Christian people by exercising a "visitorial power" appertaining to the high and Sacred Office of Christ.
The superior courts, in their Christian capacity, are the courts in which the Christian people exercise ministerial and visitorial powers to inquire into matters of public property.
The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [*incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments.(76)
The words "eternal justice" are specific to God alone.
Presidential power expanded more in Opinions by Attorney General Caleb Cushing (1853-54):
One of these claimed for the President the power, as growing out of his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully execute," to institute investigations and incur expenditures thereof which it became the moral obligation of Congress to meet.(77) Another held that although no statute made it the duty of the United States to assume the legal defense by counsel of marshals and other ministerial officers of the law when they were sued for their official acts, yet it was within the discretion of the President to do so if he was persuaded that such officers were being harassed by suits on this account.(78) Pertinent too was Cushing's holding a little later that a marshal of the United States when opposed in the execution of his duty by unlawful combinations, had authority to summon the entire able-bodied force of his precinct as a posse comitatus, comprehending not only bystanders and citizens generally but any and all organized armed forces, whether militia of the states, or officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines of the United States.(79)
... President Lincoln would rely upon the posse comitatus argument in justification of his call for volunteers in April of 1861.[*made under Exec. Ord. No. 1] Cushing's opinion would also be ... [*used] in In re Neagle (1890) and In re Debs (1895), both of which resulted in broader Presidential discretion in the exercise of implied emergency power.(80)
Two acts of Jefferson relate to a larger picture. First, he signed into law an Act to bring international law into his office. Since this act and others governed the conduct of the armies and navies, their use came solely under the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief. The Act was The Articles of War.(81)
Second, was a series of acts defining his foreign policy with England and France, which led to the War of 1812. Though this War did not take place under Jefferson, it was still caused by his foreign policy. It began with Jefferson's embargo on shipping to England and France during the war in Europe.
Jefferson's embargo led to a devastating economic depression in New England. His new power alarmed the North and led to The Hartford Convention years later, which sought to find ways of curbing the President's power in times of war and crisis. The Conventions recommendations(82) were utterly ignored. To fully understand the issues, The History of the Hartford Convention should be studied fully. As a prologue to it, the following is offered:
... history [shows] the causes of the "Civil War" to have been in existence during the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view in the debates of the several State Assemblies on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in which instrument Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, and others, insisted that they were implanted. African slavery at the time was universal, and ... was due to economic reasons alone.
The first serious difficulty of the Federal Government arose from the attempt to lay an excise on distilled spirits. The second arose from the hostility of New England traders to the policy of the Government in the war of 1812, by which their special interests were menaced; and there is now evidence to prove that, but for the unexpected peace, an attempt to disrupt the Union would then have been made.
The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 was I... a truce between antagonistic revenue systems [commerce], each seeking to gain the balance of power. For many years subsequently, slaves -- as domestic servants -- were taken to the Territories without exciting remark, and the "Nullification" movement in South Carolina was entirely directed against the tariff.
Anti-slavery was agitated from an early period, but failed to attract public attention for many years. At length, by unwearied industry, by ingeniously attaching itself to exciting questions of the day with which it had not natural connection, it succeeded in making a lodgment in the public mind, which, like a subject exhausted by long effort, is exposed to the attack of some malignant fever, ... The common belief that slavery was the cause of civil war is incorrect, and Abolitionists are not justified in claiming the glory and spoils of the conflict and in pluming themselves as "choosers of the slain."
The vast immigration that poured into the country between the years 1840 and 1860 had a very important influence in directing the events ... States in the West were controlled by German and Scandinavian voters, while the Irish took possession of the seaboard towns. ... the balance of party strength was not much affected by [them] ...modes of political thought were seriously disturbed, and a tendency was manifested to transfer exciting topics from the domain of argument to that of violence.(83)
From Cottage to Factory
Business in its simplest form means the exchange of one service or commodity for another. In its broadest sense the word includes all forms of activity that human beings carry on for profit in ways that are permitted [*licensed] by law. Business has gone through greater changes since the War between the North and the South than in all the 250 years of our previous history. Both in volume and in complexity the changes stagger our imagination.(84)
Christianity and God's Law does not hold with engaging in any activity 'solely for profit.'(85) Commerce is based on covetousness. The rise in the level of commerce in New England marks the beginning of the churches abandonment of the Christian Calling under God's Law and Christian common Law.
During the colonial period business differed little from that of biblical days. It was conducted on a small scale, and was carried on almost wholly by individuals, rather than by companies or corporations. For a quarter century after the close of the Revolutionary War(86) there was little change in the character of American business. Agriculture [incorrect term] continued to be the largest industry. Men worked on farms [*commercial term] not only from force of habit, but because farming was profitable and because it seemed a good way of life. Manufacturing remained largely a household occupation, carried on by the family at odd hours snatched from other employment [*commercial term].…A few banks were organized, ...not numerous enough or large enough to change the old ways of doing business [*commercial term].
About 1808, however, a transformation began to take place in American business. The factory began to displace household manufacturing. Commerce was influenced by the same conditions....by 1860, business took on many of the modern aspects ....largely due to the use of mechanical inventions; the discovery of new natural resources; improved methods of transportation; and to the development of banking and the use of stock companies and corporations for financing large enterprises. At the same time came faint beginnings of governmental regulation and supervision of business in the interests of society.
…factory manufacturing gained a foothold in the northern states during the period of 1808 to 1814, when European markets (primarily English and French) were closed against American foodstuffs and raw materials, …the Industrial Revolution began in the cloth making and iron industries. Encouraged by a high tariff and by an expanding home market, manufacturing developed rapidly. In 1810 the value of products manufactured in the United States was about 200 million dollars. By 1860 their value had increased to almost 2 billion dollars, ...[1000%]
* * *
A banking system was created to serve the needs of business. The rapid growth of industry and of foreign and domestic commerce made necessary the establishment of banks to assist the exchange of money and credit.... When the first bank of the United States was established, in 1791, there were only three other banks in the entire country (Philadelphia, New York (Chase) and Boston (Boston Five Cent Bank)) .
* * *
Corporations were created to finance large enterprises. But banks alone were not sufficient to finance the expansion of business by loans. New forms of business organizations had to be developed. The cost of building turnpikes, canals, railroads, telegraph lines, and other large enterprises was beyond that of any thing heretofore undertaken by American business.... [*They were] financed in two ways by the formation of companies and by government aid.
The joint-stock company, could finance large undertakings. Granted a charter by a legislature, it became a corporation. [*The descent into commerce accelerates]
The government gave aid to transportation companies. Even in the colonial period it had been thought proper for the government to aid private business in constructing roads, bridges, or ferries. In the nineteenth century government aid for the city, county, state, and federal took the form of purchasing stock in turnpike or canal companies.(87)
In 1847 Congress began the practice of giving public land to canal companies, and three years later extended the practice to railroads by a generous grant to the Illinois Central, which was building a railroad from Chicago to New Orleans. By 1860 Congress had granted more than 30 million acres to various states, to be re-granted by them to railroad and canal companies. Counties frequently gave right of ways, and towns generally granted land for stations and yards.
... By 1860 nearly all the basic elements of modern 'big business' had come into operation. The agricultural yield had been greatly enlarged by increased population, increased acreage, and improved farm implements. Manufacturing had passed definitely into the factory state, and the output of American factories was supplying the greater part of the domestic need, as well as the foreign demand for ... sewing machines and harvesting machinery. Commerce and trade in the products of farm and factory were stimulated and made easy by the opening up of more extensive transportation systems, by the rapid spread of the telegraph system, by the increasing formation of stock companies to finance large enterprises, and by the multiplication of banks.
The War between the North and the South aided business. As we have already seen the War between the North and the South caused great and rapid expansion in all forms of industry and business in the North. Farms and factories had to supply the needs of the armies. Mines and furnaces had to furnish material for building engines and rolling stock and for the rapidly lengthening railroad mileage.
The national banking system was inaugurated by Congress in 1863 chiefly to restore order to the [*paper] currency. By this law, a bank wishing to issue notes must first buy government bonds and deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States. It could then issue bank notes to the value of the bonds, which were held by the government as security. Thus the notes were safe. In order to make them more secure and give them ready circulation, the law required each bank to keep in its vaults a certain amount of specie with which to redeem its notes on demand.(88)
It is clear why Jefferson's embargo shocked New England, who was leading the nation down a commercial sewer pipe. He made it clear to all by his acts that directly affected New England's commerce, that in a crisis, real or imagined, a President's power was uncontrolled by nothing but his own, vain natural reason when he felt the urge to use it.
Then, Congress began to regulate where tax monies were to be spent to aid commerce:
In 1833 there was a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasury which by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of nations was distributed among the Northern States to be used for local public improvements.(89)
At this point in time U.S. Senators were appointed by State legislatures because the States who created the Constitution wanted a means of protecting State interests. The incident above over-turned the Constitutional doctrine of "equal standing" fundamental to the tranquility, harmony, and the more perfect Union of the Constitution was subverted. States were no longer equal before the law and the growing movement in the North to terminate the Constitution by secession, was used more and more to 'encourage' the South to secede. After Lincoln, all pretense was dropped as the South was raped and plundered to benefit the North:
Before the Revolution (the South) was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality.…Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?…Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.…Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction -- it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. ... Federal legislation does all this.(90)
Before 1833 secession from the union was a well recognized Right that applied to all States. After 1861 it suddenly become 'illegal' -- though not un-Lawful -- for a State to secede:
The attempted secession of eleven of the states from the Union…gave rise to many important decisions affecting the mutual relations of the national and state governments, and the rights of citizens under contracts made before and during the war.
William Rawle,(91) in treating the guarantee of the constitution to every state in the Union of a republican form of government, expressed the opinion that a state had the right to withdraw from the Union. He said:
"If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it. Yet it is not to be understood that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government."(92)
"The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics."(93)
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state.(94)
The editor of this Revision of Bouvier (1914 revision) found among the papers of William Rawle, some years ago his 'Notes on the Constitution' evidently intended to be used in the preparation of a third edition. Apparently they were prepared during the Nullification excitement; President Jackson's Nullification Proclamation was issued December 10, 1832. [Rawle] died in 1836 without completing the third edition. He says in these notes:
"The distressing agitation of the public mind now prevailing in two of the Southern States (S. Carolina and Georgia) has induced the author carefully to review this chapter with much anxiety to discover whether his opinions on this important subject are correct and with a full determination candidly to avow any error which he should find in them. The exact question is whether the people of one state may withdraw that state from the Union without the consent of the other states, or the rest of the People of the Union." And he concludes: "Very gratifying would it have been to the author of this work had his reconsideration of this most interesting question terminated in a different conviction, but he cannot retract in this edition what he continues to think nor expunge what has already been laid before the public."
Among the same papers was a letter from Mr. Justice Story, written to Mr. Rawle soon after the publication of his first edition, in which he expressed his dissent from Mr. Rawle's view of the right of secession, and accepted an invitation to visit him in Philadelphia on his way from Washington to Boston, after the adjournment of the Supreme Court, to discuss the subject. Unfortunately this letter has been mislaid.
Charles Francis Adams, in a letter to the editor of May 18, 1914, from which the editor is authorized to quote, refers to the 'crystallization of United States nationality.' He says:
"As you, doubtless, know, I have made rather a specialty of this subject. The result has left my mind perfectly clear. Your grandfather's statement is correct both historically and legally. When approached with an open mind his position is unassailable."
"He wrote of a condition of affairs, and of a law, prevailing anterior to the year 1830. I do not think that his statement and conclusions admit of question. The process of crystallization, or, to put it in other terms, the growth of the idea of nationality may be dated from that time. It is a most interesting historical development. Story initiated it in his Comments [Commentaries] on the Constitution. Webster developed it in his debate with Hayne. The Nullification Question presented it as a concrete fact at issue to the community at large. The result was apparent in the growth of the generation which grew up, and took control of public affairs in 1860.
Lawyers and judges, as a result of a profession living by contention, are always disposed to stand for a written law, everlasting, fixed and invariable. The historian, seeing things from a different point of view, recognizes growth and elasticity. These two elements of law had in my judgment curious exemplification in the case of the constitution; and in this connection the record contained in Rawle's Commentaries has in my judgment great historic value. But it needs to be developed historically; and people should be made to understand the process of crystallization which went on in this country from 1642, when the New England Confederacy was formed, and which reached its final climax at Appomattox, some 220 years later. The last pretense of the right of secession then was reluctantly abandoned, as something outgrown.
I hope, therefore, you will not hesitate to revive what I consider by no means a dead question, but, on the contrary, an historical fact of great constitutional moment.
It may be added that the question of whether this work on the Constitution was used as a text book and the right of secession was ever taught at the West Point Military Academy has received much discussion in the last few years. The evidence is not conclusive; the last and fullest treatment of the question is by James W. Latta, a member of the Philadelphia Bar and a student of military affairs, in a paper read before the Loyal Legion in 1909. He reaches the conclusion that Rawle on the Constitution (pub. 1825) could not have been used as a text book at West Point for more than two years from the date of its publication, that it may have been so used during that period, and that constitutional law was a part of the course of only the graduating class.(95)
Robert Edward Lee wrote to Lord Acton:
I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State Papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing the consolidation and centralization of power as tending to the subversion of State Governments and to despotism. The New England States, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern states, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mister Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless the War [of 1812] should be discontinued."(96)
Story(97) and Webster favored a national union even with considerable history against them down to 1861. The issue directly affects the State and Federal relationship, which, as a 'national' government, rather than a federation of states, makes the 'national' government superior to States, rather than a creation of the states. These ideas would not agree with Isaiah 9:6, and would be a fundamental flaw in early American thought. because the national government could never show that it had a lineage traceable to the Tree of Life. Again, the Source, Cause, and Origin of Law come into play.
In 1861, Attorney General John Black wrote:
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I., section 8, is that, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of a State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union, that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrections against the States; but this is confined by Article IV., section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not lunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States (Union) together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. And if Congress shall break up the Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility' which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the Central Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.(98)
This opinion by Black immediately cost him his job under Lincoln. Thus, from the founding era to 1861 States had the right to secede, and if Congress or anyone else tried to stop them, by force or otherwise, it would radically change the relationship of the states to each other and to the Federal government. This last relationship was purportedly settled solely by A. Lincoln out of the barrel of a gun.
In further consideration of this proposition, we note later that this war never ended; but is continued to this day with the Reconstruction Acts under various and sundry titles. These are evidence of the change of relationship as well as of religion. We would also add that there never was a treaty of peace signed by and between the belligerent parties.
Before Lincoln's War, the consensus on the relationship of the state to the federal power was:
…the state governments are ... essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all; and the senate is exclusively and absolutely under the choice of the state legislatures. The representatives are chosen by the people of the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented; and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation. How is it possible, under such circumstances, that the national government can be dangerous to the liberties of the people, unless the states, and the people of the states, conspire together for their overthrow? If there should be such a conspiracy, is not this more justly deemed an act of the states through their own agents, ... rather than a corrupt usurpation by the general government?"(99)
After Lincoln's War, however, the whole issue was turned on its head..
All these challenges from various parts of the country were disposed of peaceably, except for the slavery controversy. Over that issue and secession the North, behind Lincoln's leadership, finally settled by force the ultimate issue of National supremacy (under the person posing as president). After the war it could no longer be maintained that the Union was only a creature of the States, or a compact between them, liable to be thwarted or dissolved at the will of any of them. From then on, the interpretation of National powers was to be determined, in the main, by some National authority."(100)
The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted, shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breakout of the late civil war. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government.(101)
The implications then, are clear:
Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government."(102)
Thus, commercial nationalism, a heresy in respect to Christianity, triumphs by force of arms at the expense of the States and states, and Christianity. The Constitution is no longer enforceable by states against the Federal government as it was before Lincoln's War. The new policy created solely by Lincoln and his cohorts in treason, became the sole judge of the extent of its own authority. The horse thief in charge of the corral. This is, and always will be, a political question which can never be decided judicially.
No doubt many will say that we are without "remedy" because the Supreme Court never listened to the South when it brought cases there seeking relief from the Reconstruction Acts. Nothing could be further from the Truth. The reason: these cases were heard in equity. Hello? Are you listening? The political remedy is still available, where equity does not reach. To make this point clear:
These rights can be destroyed only by destroying the [*Christian based] communities which have inherited them. To destroy communities for the enjoyment of their inherent rights, is a crime of nameless atrocity.(103)
Thus, as we have said above, the war was and still is, a religious war:
The traditional symbols of community in the West, the traditional images and metaphors, have been above all religious and legal. In the twentieth century, however, for the first time, religion has become largely a private affair, while law has become largely a matter of practical [economic] expediency. The connection between the religious metaphor and the legal metaphor has been broken. Neither expresses any longer the community's vision of its future and its past; neither commands any longer its passionate loyalty.(104)
And the Humanist, through war, has done something separate, distinct, foreign and strange to the Christian, to fill the void left by the Christian church:
"INSTITUTION. The commencement or inauguration of any thing. The first establishment of a law, rule, rite, etc. Any custom, system, organization, etc., firmly established. An elementary rule or principle.
An establishment, specially one of public character or one affecting a community.(105) An established or organized society or corporation. It may be private in its character, designed for profit to those composing the organization, or public and charitable in its purposes.(106) A foundation; as, a literary or charitable institution.(107)
The term 'institution' is sometimes used as descriptive of an establishment or place where the business or operations of a society or association is carried on; at other times it is used to designate the organized body.(108)
* * *
Civil Law. The appointment of an heir; the act by which a testator nominates one or more persons to succeed him in all his rights active and passive.(109)
Political Law. A law, rite, or ceremony enjoined by authority as a permanent rule of conduct or of government. Webster. An organized society, established either by law or the authority of individuals, for promoting any object, public or social.(110)
A system or body of usages, laws, or regulations of extensive and recurring operation, containing within itself an organism by which it effects its own independent action, continuance, and generally its own further development. Its object is to generate, effect, regulate, or sanction a succession of acts, transactions, or productions of a peculiar kind or class. We are likewise in the habit of calling single laws or usages 'institutions,' if their operation is of vital importance and vast cope, and if their continuance is in a high degree independent of any interfering power.(111)
"Public institution. One which is created and exists by law or public authority, e.g., an asylum, charity, college, university, schoolhouse, etc.(112)
…In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government;…(113)
The bureaucratic system, administrators of Lincoln's religious rites, had a predictable end and source in foreign law, as evidenced by the Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound:
Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it.
Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute.(114) [* Note: This describes the military "character" of administrative procedure.]
Thereby evidencing the humanist's "religious principles" in martial rule and military governance:
POLICY. The general principles by which a government is guided in its management of public affairs, or the legislature in its measures.
This term, as applied to a law, ordinance, or rule of law, denotes its general purpose or tendency considered as directed to the welfare or prosperity of the state or community.
* * *
Policy of a statute, or legislature. As applied to a penal or prohibitive statute, means the intention of discouraging conduct of a mischievous tendency.(115)
Policy of the law. By this phrase is understood the disposition of the law to discountenance certain classes of acts, transactions, or agreements, or to refuse them its sanction, because it considers them immoral, detrimental to the public welfare, subversive of good order, or otherwise contrary to the plan and purpose of civil regulations.
Public policy. That principle of law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against public good.(116) The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community.(117) The term 'policy,' as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, ... refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, ... acts are said to be 'against public policy,' when the law refuses to enforce ... them, [because] they have a mischievous tendency, ... injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality.(118)
'Public policy' is the community common sense and common conscience extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, public health, public safety, public welfare, ...it is that general and well-settled public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow men having due regard to all the circumstances of each particular relation and situation.(119) Public policy properly cognizable by the courts is that derived or derivable by clear implication from its constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions.(120) 'Public policy is a variable quantity; it must and does vary with the habits, capacities, and opportunities of the public.'(121)
The only Law capable of overriding and superseding this military public policy is Christian common Law.
Nevertheless, the problem for secessionists before Lincoln's War was, even though states had a right to secede, none would do so -- easily -- because the people held so strongly to the Constitution's sanctity. Any politician stupid enough to propose secession would commit political suicide. Thus, factions in the North worked in less 'public' ways to achieve the same end.
Northerners thought secession would take hold naturally in the South. When it did not, and because they could not go public, they went underground with other methods and special agents. Typical of such agents were The Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret organization which,
…very coincidentally began in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1854. It was called the Knights of the Golden Circle, and it utilized very un-Ohioesque mummeries such as the Maltese Cross by way of symbolism. We would still know very little about this Scottish Rite (of Freemasonry) front organization, if its official founder, George W. L. Bickley, had not talked after being put in the Ohio State Prison by military authorities during the Civil War.
The Knights of the Golden Circle was the military organization of what was to become the Confederate States of America.
After the first 'castles' of the Knights were set up in Cincinnati ... the new order sent organizers and recruiters southward to the Gulf Coast and eastward to Washington, D.C. Recruits signed up in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and in Texas all along the Rio Grande river bordering on Mexico. General P. T. Beauregard, brother in law of Louisiana's political boss John Slidell, joined the order; Beauregard was to be in command of the South Carolina troops in 1861 to supervise the attack on Fort Sumter which started the Civil War.
By the time the Civil War started, the Knights of the Golden Circle claimed at least 65,000 armed and drilled recruits in the deep South, and in the area of the nation's capital. The order gradually stepped up its molding of Southern 'public opinion' toward the necessity of secession from the Union. At the point secession was being resolved upon, it was of great value to the leaders of the insurrection to have an armed secret organization numbering in the thousands, to enforce 'unanimous' public support for their actions.(122)
Now, where did the Knights get the funds to conduct what are obviously, very widespread operations?
The Swiss master of the Scottish Rite (Masons) in the Northern Jurisdiction, J. J. Gourgas du Pan de Rengers, set in motion to blow up the United States.…Gourgas delegated Killian Henry Van Rensselaer -- a "patroon" of the old unreconstructed Dutch feudal lords in New York -- to take personal charge of initiating a military organization with insurrectionary potential in the heart of the country.
In 1851 K. H. Van Rensselaer was named Deputy to the Northern Supreme Council for the states of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Over the next two years, he made his way westward, carefully probing for local openings, testing the political waters. In 1853 he set up the First Consistory, or regional headquarters west of New York -- in Cincinnati, Ohio.(123)
Thus, Nathaniel Beeman, a radical abolitionist, became the conduit for funding to the Knights. But, while the Knights had their own agenda, there were others that sought to create incidents that would spark a war. This group backed the infamous John Brown and his incompetent raid on the Harper's Ferry Armory:
As the Kansas violence was increasing, Samuel Cabot (grand-nephew of George Cabot and grandson of opium syndicate founder Thomas H. Perkins) and Amos A. Lawrence, a principle stock-holder in the Emigrant Aid Society, sent four thousand dollars worth of Sharp rifles into Kansas. The exact nature of John Brown's direct Cabot connection may never be known, because all but one of his sponsors burned their papers immediately after John Brown's capture. But this much is certain: when Brown failed at an earlier attempt to establish himself as a wool merchant, Perkins' syndicate member John Murray Forbes donated a chunk of cash to keep Brown going; and the Cabot Bank loaned Brown $57,000; how or whether this was repaid is unknown.(124)
The arms went to Kansas to fuel violence and insurrection and spark a war between the North and the South, from which the Northeastern banks would profit in the purchase of war bonds at high interest. Cash donated by Forbes and the 57,000 dollar loan by the distinguished Cabot Bank kept Brown's gang of twenty-one thieves, murderers, and terrorists going after the operations in Kansas failed. These funds brought John Brown to Harper's Ferry on Sunday, October 16, 1859.
The Abolitionists movement was a principal factor in initiating Lincoln's War. It was largely motivated by ideas that could only be classified as misguided religious fanaticism:
That this anti-slavery constitutional theory was extremely heterodox [*heretical] is clear. It was not primarily the product of minds trained in vigorous case analysis or statutory construction. It confused moral with civil and constitutional rights. It made the Declaration of Independence the basic constitutional document…the Federal Bill of Rights a source rather than a limitation of federal power.(125)
The Abolitionist religion was Unitarian. Unitarians hated Southerners because some held slaves. But, the Unitarians view of Southern slavery was something akin to a fantastic illusion of distortions and half-truths. Second, was the South's devotion to Orthodox Christianity, especially Presbyterianism.
Note the direction of the flow of law after Lincoln's War -- man's creation, the Bill of Rights, is now the source of rights, not God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This changes the presumption of innocence by law and the character of the rights exercised. It is idolatry, a religion,(126) and the Reconstruction Acts, principally the Civil Rights Acts, as amended, and the Voting Rights Acts, as amended, are the 'Bible.' Plainly, the Abolitionists sought to set up a pagan religion and conquer Christianity and the states -- crimen laesae majestatis -- high treason against King Jesus. Those looking to such acts as a source are pagans and infidels, and thus oppose God, Christ, and all Good and Lawful Christians:
PAGAN. n. 1. One who does not worship the true God; a heathen; one not a Christian, Mohammedan, or Jew; formerly, one not a Christian. 2. An irreligious person. --a. 1. Of or pert. to pagans; heathen; idolatrous. 2. Irreligious; heathenish.
Syn. Pagan, heathen. In modern usage, that is pagan which is not Christian, Jewish, or Mohammedan; the word refers esp. to past customs, sentiments, beliefs, or their survivals, and frequently implies contrast with Christianity rather than opposition to it; heathen commonly suggests polytheism or idolatry, esp. of uncivilized peoples.(127)
INFIDEL. a. 1. Not holding to the faith; esp., not Christian; also opposing or (regarded as) traitorous to Christianity. 2. Of or pertaining to infidels or infidelity.
--n. 1. A disbeliever; esp.: a One not a Christian. b One not a Mohammedan. 2. One who does not believe (in something understood or specified); as, an infidel as regards spirit writings.
Syn. Infidel, freethinker, skeptic, agnostic, unbeliever, atheist. Infidel in modern popular usage is a term of reproach for one who avowedly denies the tenets of Christianity and the truth of the Scriptures. Freethinker varies, and may imply warranted freedom of thought or pernicious license of opinion. Skeptic emphasizes the suggestion of doubt; agnostic, that of suspended judgment. Unbeliever is commonly opposed to believer; and is virtually equivalent to disbeliever; it suggests more a personal, less a purely intellectual, attitude toward Christianity than skeptic, agnostic, or freethinker. An atheist is one who denies the existence of God.(128)
Abolitionists were propagandists of the first rank and actively promoted violence as a tool of social cleansing and regeneration, especially in the case of John Brown. The use of subversion, terror, murder, and insurrection to advance the Abolitionist cause is seen in the Emigrant Aid Societies, whose initial goal was to encourage settlement in Kansas of those who would make it a Free State, i.e. an anti-slavery state. These efforts were championed by Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune newspaper and the Daily Advertiser, in Boston, among many others.(129)
Those aiding Brown formed a committee of six, The Massachusetts Kansas Aid Committee, that armed and funded all of Brown's murder and violence in Kansas and at Harper's Ferry. These New Englanders were:
a. Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, a famous physician and hero of the Greek War of Independence. He acquired his wealth and influence by marrying Julia Ward, a woman whose fame rivaled that of any of the literati of Massachusetts and New England.(130)
b. Rev. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, rejected Christianity in favor of Unitarianism. As a literary critic he altered Emily Dickinson's poems "to make them suitable for publication," and became an advocate of women's rights, Prohibition, and Socialism.(131)
c. Rev. Theodore Parker, was the most famous preacher in his day and turned against Christianity in favor of Unitarianism. He died in Rome of tuberculosis after the Harper's Ferry raid but before Lincoln's War. He organized the Unitarian churches to support the radical abolitionist committees and societies that supported men such as John Brown.
d. Gerrit Smith, inherited vast holdings from his father, who had been a partner of John Jacob Astor. When Brown was arrested after Harper's Ferry, this former member of Congress fled to Canada and later had himself admitted to an insane asylum to avoid being included with Brown's activities at Harper's Ferry.(132)
e. Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, a former schoolmaster, married an invalid heiress on her death-bed and inherited her fortune eight days later when she died.(133) After the War he became a powerful governmental official in Massachusetts, promoting State control of education and philanthropy (social welfare).
f. George Luther Stearns, was a wealthy Boston manufacturer of lead pipe who, after the raid at Harper's Ferry, became a major in the Union Army.
Indirectly, Brown was aided by Ralph Waldo Emerson and a public "pacifist," Henry David Thoreau, who secretly supported violence against the South. Others, included many New England Congressmen. All had much to hide and burnt all evidence of the Committee's support for Brown. The Secret Six as accessories before the fact in Brown's murders were never prosecuted. Congress' investigation of Brown's raid was a white-wash controlled by Northern Congressmen. Brown was convicted of murder and treason against the state of Virginia and hanged after a trial in which his testimony reads like a man on drugs.(134)
Eventually, the South succumbed to all the pressure from Congress, Brown's raid, the inequitable tax money distribution collected by the Federal government, and the forces of subversion. But,
Whatever errors in policy they may have committed, ...their real object ...was not to overthrow the Government of the United States; but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution. The form of Government therein embodied, I did think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the world will never see its like again.
But, with the election of Lincoln, the proverbial straw was laid on the South's back and instantly, the South began to secede in self-defense after resisting it for more than twenty years.
Enter the Dragon
Ten years before Lincoln took office, Congress passed the Limited Liability Act (1851), which is, in many ways, a watershed bill because it marks the point in the Legislative history of Congress where that body made a clear determination to depart from Christian law and opt to legislate the Humanist religion. Before this Act, Congress passed legislation that was often questionable or, in part contrary to God's Law. In this there was no doubt. The Act directly impacted on Christian churches who had incorporated, in that, it provided limited liability for any who incorporated, i.e., it created a veil of protection between the creators of a corporation and fictional corporation itself. In truth, it allowed incorporators to avoid the consequences of unlawful or illegal acts by the corporation. A Christian pastor, for example, was not liable for some act done by his church corporation which violated the civil law. The same was true for the incorporators of regular 'for profit' corporations. The Law of God, of course, demands that all men be held accountable for their actions that are contrary to His Law.
We also mention here, in passing, that the level of intensity and violence in the Abolitionist camp seemed to grow almost exponentially during the decade that preceded Lincoln's election. As was noted above, where ever the Abolitionists had access to the media, they were connecting the cause of Abolition to every possible issue to the point where, the entire public agenda was colored in every phase by Abolitionism.
About 1854, two men engineered the destruction of the Whig party and out of its ashes created the Republican party. These men were A. Lincoln and Gould.
It seems appropriate at this time, to present a part of the evidence for the character of A. Lincoln.
First, it is clear that Lincoln's efforts in helping to found the Republican Party were entirely in his own self-interest. By the time he ran for the Presidency, he had sought public office thirteen times. He lost almost every time, except for his election to Congress and the Presidency. Seldom, in American politics, is there an example of such a clear, all-consuming obsession with political power.
Second, is the question of Lincoln's religious views and his method of dealing with public charges concerning his religion. It seems word had gotten around that he was not a Christian, and since, in the middle of the 19th century no man could run for office without at least paying lip-service to Christ, Lincoln wrote and circulated the following handbill throughout his district:
TO THE VOTERS OF THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this district in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scripture; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination, of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the 'Doctrine of Necessity,'-- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action or held in rest by some power over which the mind itself has not control; and I have sometimes (with one, two, or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus, however, I have entirely left off for more than five years; and I add here I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing is the whole truth, briefly stated in relation to myself on this subject.
I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences between him and his Maker, I still do not think that any man has the right thus to insult the feelings and injure the morals of the community in which he may live. If then I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who would condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.(135)
Reread the above and notice that Lincoln only appears to deny the charges against him as he tries to turn the charges against him in his favor. But, a careful reading shows that the handbill is really a good deal of smoke and mirrors. What denominations of Christians hold a doctrine of forces "by necessity"? The group of "Christians" Lincoln referred to are Unitarians, who have been called, 'Atheists in evening clothes.'
As to the statement that he has never 'denied the truth of religion,' or spoken with 'intentional disrespect,' there is considerable evidence to the contrary, from his law partner of nearly two decades up to the time of Lincoln's death.
Lincoln would come into the clerk's office, where I and some young men…were writing or staying, and would bring the Bible with him; would read a chapter; [and] argue against it. …Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an atheist; at least bordered on it. Lincoln was enthusiastic about his infidelity. As he grew older, he grew more discreet, didn't talk much before strangers about his religion; but to friends, close and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair and honest; but to strangers he held them off from policy.(136)
Lincoln wasn't stupid. He hid his atheism from all but 'bosom' buddies. He knew it would destroy his chances politically, to publicize his atheism:
Lamon tells in detail(137) of the writing and the burning of a 'little book,' written by Lincoln with the purpose to disprove the truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ, and tells how it was burned without his consent by his friend Hill, lest it should ruin his political career before a Christian people. He says that Hill's son called the book 'infamous,' and that 'the book was burnt, but he never denied or regretted its composition; on the contrary, he made it the subject of free and frequent conversations with his friends at Springfield, and stated with much particularity and precision the origin, arguments, and object of the work.' Rhodes(138) tells the same story, with confirmation in another place.(139)
Lincoln's first law partner knew more of Lincoln's religious views before he became President.:
"…[Lincoln] was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on atheism;…[He] went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard; he shocked me…Lincoln always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God -- denied that Jesus was the Son of God as understood and maintained by the Christian Church.(140)
And, again, from Herndon:
Mr. Lincoln had no faith and no hope in the usual acceptation of those words. He never joined a church; but still, as I believe, he was a religious man by nature. He first seemed to talk about the subject when our boy Willie died, and then more than ever about the time he went to Gettysburg. But it was a kind of poetry in his nature, and he was never a technical Christian.(141)
"As to Mr. Lincoln's religious views, he was an infidel, was a universalist, was a unitarian, a theist. He did not believe that Jesus was God nor the son of God, etc., was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will, wrote a book in 1834 or 5--just after the death of Anne Rutledge, as I remember the facts as to time. He then became more melancholy, a little crazed, etc.; was always skeptical, read Volney in New Salem and other books. Samuel Hill of Menard was the man who burned up Lincoln's little infidel book. Lincoln told me a thousand times that he did not believe that the Bible, etc., were revelations of God, as the Christian world contends, etc. Will send you a printed letter soon on this subject. You have Mr. Hill's statement as well as Bale's, which see. See A. Y. Ellis and J. H. Matheny's testimony in your possession. The points that Mr. Lincoln tried to demonstrate are, first, that the Bible was not God's revelations; and, secondly, that Jesus was not the son of God. I assert this on my own knowledge, and on my own veracity, honor, or what not. Your own father-in-law, Mr. T. J. Stuart, James H. Matheny, etc., etc., will tell you the truth. I say they will confirm what I say, with this exception, they will all make it blacker than I remember it. Joshua F. Speed of Louisville, I think, will tell you the same thing. I think the book of Lincoln was written in 1834 or 5, just after the death of Ann Rutledge--I know it was after that event.
* * *
"What I stated to Arnold was and is true. Mr. Lincoln loved Ann Rutledge to his death, make no mistake. He next courted Miss Owens, and next Mary Todd, and while so doing he lit on Miss Edwards's face. Lincoln never loved, i.e., dearly loved, his "Mary"--he was engaged to her when Miss Edwards ran across his path. His vow to Ann Rutledge's love and death, his promise to Mary and their engagement, and Miss Edwards flitting across the path, etc., made Lincoln crazy the second time--see Judge Logan's (in a little book I last sent you), see Stuart's, Miss Edwards's, and other testimony in your records. You must read over and over again the records. If any thing is proved, what I say to Arnold is proved. I know many if not all the facts my self. Lincoln, Speed, and I slept together for two or three years, i.e., slept in the same home, I being Speed's clerk; and Lincoln sleeping with Speed. I have heard Lincoln talk about the matter, and from what I know and from what I have been told by others in whom I have implicit confidence and trust, I say, if what I told Arnold is not proved, nothing can be proved. You may reduce the elements of causation this way: say that Lincoln's honor was pledged to Miss Todd, that he saw and loved another woman, Miss Edwards, and that he desired to break away from Miss Todd and to join Miss Edwards, and that the struggle caused the second crazed spells, and yet -- I know that the Ann Rutledge element entered as strong as any element. His vow to her or her memory, etc., was as strong as his honor at any other time. Do you see? Read over your records again and again. It will save you much trouble and me too. The two suppositions of which you speak are not [undeciphered]. Co-existing, do co-exist nevertheless. The second insanity springs from his old love of Ann Rutledge. His engagements with his "sweet Mary," and his determination to break that engagement off, and to marry Miss Edwards if he could, I repeat, was the cause of his second insanity. I hate to differ from you, but I can't avoid it, nor see the difficulty you do. Excuse me. Read your records closely again and again."(142)
Lincoln never recanted or withdrew his statements on Christ or the Scripture.
Lamon further says, at page 499,: 'The following extract from a letter from Mr. Herndon was extensively published throughout the United States about the time of its date, February 18, 1870, and met with no contradiction from any responsible source: 'When Lincoln was a candidate for our [*Illinois] Legislature, he was accused of being an infidel; of having said that Jesus Christ was an illegitimate child. He never denied the opinions or flinched from his religious views.'(143)
So who did Abraham Lincoln worship as his god? Let us have him tell us in his own words:
Washington is the mightiest name on earth--long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty, still mightiest in moral reformation. On that name no eulogy is expected. It cannot be.…To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name, and, in its naked, deathless splendor, leave in shining on.(144)
Let us believe, as in the days of our youth, that Washington was spotless; it makes human nature better to believe that one human being was perfect; that human perfection is possible.(145)
Is Washington mentioned any where in the Bible? Does it depict the "spotless" Washington as Messiah, who will come to save us from our sins? Lincoln's religious thought clearly bordered on Caesar worship which fits his idea of the government he created.
The New Nationalism
…Our interest is primarily in the application to-day of the lessons taught by the contest of half a century ago [*Lincoln's War]. It is of little use for us to pay lip loyalty to the mighty men of the past unless we sincerely endeavour to apply to the problems of the present precisely the same qualities which in other crises enabled the men of that day to meet those crises. It is half melancholy and half amusing to see the way in which well-meaning people gather to do honor to the men who, in company with John Brown, and under the lead of Abraham Lincoln, faced and solved the great problems of the nineteenth century, while, at the same time, these same good people nervously shrink from, or frantically denounce, those who are trying to meet the problems of the twentieth century in the spirit which was accountable for the successful solution of the problems of Lincoln's time.
Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe the most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because [*of the national banking acts] he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out He said:
"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.'
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.'
If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln's. I am only quoting it; and that is one side, that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.(146)
Theodore Roosevelt implies -- the man Lincoln was a communist!
Yet, the rumor continued to assert 'his Christianity' and recent conversion after his youngest son died. A letter was circulated to that effect, after Lincoln's death by one of his most devoted followers. This is the only 'evidence' of Lincoln's so-called conversion and it has since been proven to be a forgery. Again, after he died, another rumor spread of his conversion just before his assassination:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865.
Friend [*William Henry] Herndon:
Mr. Lincoln did not to my knowledge in any way change his religious ideas, opinions, or beliefs from the time he left Springfield [*Illinois] to the day of his death. I do not know just what they were, never having heard him explain them in detail; but I am very sure he gave no outward indication of his mind having undergone any change in that regard while here [*in Washington].
Yours truly, Jn. G. Nicolay."(147)
John George Nicolay, Lincoln's senior private secretary, knew Lincoln intimately from 1861-1865.
The Cosmopolitan, of March, 1901, says that Nicolay 'probably was closer to the martyred President than any other man;…that he knew Lincoln as President and as man more intimately than any other man.…"(148)
An example of Lincoln's 'gentle and compassionate' heart is found in the Arlington National Cemetery affair which, before the War, was Robert E. Lee's front yard. While Lee was away fighting in Lincoln's War, Lincoln buried Northern dead in Lee's yard to embarrass and inflict pain on Mrs. Lee, who still lived in the house. In a case filed after the War, Lee's son sued to recover the unlawfully used land and won, then sold it to the Federal government to get it out of the family. On this case, the Court said:
Under our system, the People, who are there called subjects, are the Sovereign. Their Rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The Citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the Rights which the Law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his Right to property, there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the Law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that Right.(149)
And now, we must examine Lincoln's real view of the black man. First, there is his understanding of the Dred Scott decision. This case set the stage for Lincoln to wage his war, and bring in the purported post-bellum amendments:
That decision declares two propositions--first, that a Negro cannot sue in the United States courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court--dividing differently on the different points…
Judicial decisions have two uses--first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and, secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. ... Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority ... according to circumstances [*necessity and humanistic situation ethics]. ... If this decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true or, of wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be ... factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it ,,. But when ... we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.(150)
From the outset, Lincoln was wrong. The court never said a Negro could not sue in the United States courts and never mentioned free persons of color. It said slaves, black or white, lacked standing to bring an action against the master, because slavery was not a federal judicial question, it was a State question. The court could not take any case where one party lacks standing, because such an issue is political, not judicial. Congress' hands were and are tied because the law establishing it and the Territories are the common property of all the states of both classes. Second, slavery is a state question, not a federal question. Congress could do nothing about slavery in a Territory until it became a state. This neither the Abolitionists nor Lincoln wanted.
Note, in the last phrase, Lincoln's lack of respect for the court. Yes, the court erred, but did it err according to Law? Certainly not. The court never decided the case on its merits, and merely turned down a hearing. Each justice gave an opinion why the court could not hear the case and that is all they did. They never had jurisdiction because the case came from the Missouri Territory. But, the court had jurisdiction only over cases from the States only.(151)
Most of the propaganda on Lincoln centers around his image as the Great Emancipator. An honest view of Lincoln, however, will show that this title is mere propaganda.
First, there is Lincoln's debates with Douglas in 1858 during Lincoln's run for Congress:
I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior; and I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.(152)
Again, from his conversations with black leaders in the White House where he said:
Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.(153)
But, what about the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact and in law, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves. It was the birth of the dream of one power-crazed and lustful man. It merely transferred them from Southern plantations, to the Federal plantation, because Lincoln needed assets to guarantee the loans he was creating to fight 'his war.' This is seen in how Lincoln perceived the proclamation, the wording in the proclamation itself, and the act of Congress which allowed for its creation:
…The original proclamation has no…legal justification except as a military measure.…If I take the step, must I not do so without the argument of military necessity, and so without any argument except…that I think the measure…expedient…? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism?…Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and even change any law in any State? Would not many of our own friends shrink away appalled? Would it not lose us the elections, and with them the very cause we seek to advance?(154)
The final proclamation was not intended as a moral political act by Lincoln ... to free slaves, as has often been credited since by public sentiment and taught in Northern schools. The President never had such constitutional power. It was an act of war by the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy to break the military power of the rebellion which was [*thought to be] based on slavery. It declared that 'all persons held as slaves' in rebellious states or parts of states as designated 'are and shall henceforward be free.' Although it did not state that they were 'forever free' as the preliminary proclamation [*September 22, 1862], it implied that these slaves would continue to be free after their former owners restored allegiance to the Union, and/or the governments of their states resumed normal functions in the Union, and it declared that liberated Negroes would be enrolled in the military service.(155)
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
* * *
And I further declare and make known that such persons [*of African descent] of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States, to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.(156)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed [*despite constitutional prohibitions] and observed as such:
"Article--. All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.
"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after its passage."(157)
The Humanism of Congress is seen in its new oath:
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned and non-commissioned officers and privates, who are or shall be in the service of the United States, shall take the following oaths or affirmations, to wit: 'I, A. B. Do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.' 'I, A. B. Do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.'(158)
From the oaths of allegiance themselves, the soldier had no choice but to protect all the states, the "them," and their domestic laws against those who opposed them, whether they, the President, or members of Congress agreed with those laws or not. Note, the soldier serves the states first -- not bondholders, bankers, abolitionists or; the President; and finally the officers who are appointed over him. This is the "chain of command." The oath is given to states, not the President or Congress. Deceit, i.e. lying, used against states was criminal because this is and was where the Christian common Law was found. Only the orders of a President and Congress of the united States of America in compliance with the will of the Christian states were to be observed, all other acts not with standing.
At the end of the act, Congress gives itself an out:
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the next session of Congress, and no longer.(159)
This section, or one similar in operation to this one, is conspicuously missing in the Civil Rights Acts, as amended, and all the other war measures that were taken in the extraordinary sessions called by Lincoln. In other words, once a war has started by the government against its licensor the licensor must terminate the license to restore peace.
When slaves were transferred to military jurisdiction from private Southern plantations, they unknowingly took the benefit of "the protection of the military power of the Union." Since Congress and Lincoln went into bankruptcy to secure this "protection," there was and still is a price to pay. It is acceptance of the benefit which binds performance to those who partake of it. Thus, claiming any "civil rights," puts one under the protection of the military power, which you must pay for -- in taxes -- plus, pay for the war debt Lincoln and Congress contracted for, to give you that "protection":
American citizenship implies not only rights but also duties, not the least of which is the payment of taxes.(160)
The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States. They are under a duty to support the government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power.(161)
Accordingly, in Cook v. Tait, ... the District Court held that the Federal income tax could constitutionally be imposed upon a United States citizen residing abroad with respect to income derived solely from sources within a foreign country. It is the citizenship of the person which subjects him to the obligation to his sovereign [*either God or man], not his residence [*not true -- for such is the citizen's mark], nor the location of his property [*not true -- this marks the character of the citizen].(162)
Experience has given to history this one truth, which will never change its force among men; that funded debts and standing armies will enslave any people. These evils are inseparable. A standing army will necessitate a funding debt, to support it; and a funding debt will require a standing army to collect it.(163)
In the Proclamation, note the glaring lack of termination of military jurisdiction over those 'emancipated' by or through the proclamation. Note further, that there never was a treaty signed between the two warring parties, though Johnson declared hostilities ended, August 20, 1865. War is never terminated by mere proclamation, armistice, or surrender. It can be terminated only by a treaty of peace.
Lincoln was a man who knew how to use words, depending on who he was speaking to, and whether or not he was speaking publicly or privately. He believed in a god of forces that compelled him to do the things he did. Clearly, this god is not the God of Scripture revealed by and through Jesus, the Christ. His god was that god described in Daniel, to wit:
…Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate [*administration] shall he honour the god of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew nor shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things [*revenues]. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds [*legislated military courts] with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain [*into revenue districts].(164)
And what better proof of this can we offer than the following:
Lincoln remembered his old friend, Robert Lewis, circuit-court clerk, story teller, and wit of De Witt County, Illinois, and he told them about Bob Lewis' going to Missouri to look up some Mormon lands that belonged to his father. Bob found among his father's papers a number warrants and patents for lands in northeast Missouri, and he concluded the best thing he could do was to go to Missouri and investigate the condition of things. He rode horseback for days till he located what seemed to be his piece of land. On it was a cabin where a lean, lanky, leathery-looking man was making bullets preparatory to a hunt. Lewis showed his title papers and finished with saying, 'No, that is my title, what is yours?'
The pioneer pointed a long finger at a rifle hanging from buck horns over the fire: 'Well,' came the spitfire words, 'that is my title, and if you don't get out of here pretty damned quick you will feel the force of it.' Bob Lewis got on his horse and galloped down the road, the rifle snapping at him twice before he could turn a corner of safety.
Now, the military authorities have the same title [*by gun barrel] against the civil authorities that closed out Bob's Mormon title in Missouri. You may judge what may be the result in this case.(165)
Christianity is and was the basis of all Law in the states. By holding a gun to the instruments forged from that Law, Lincoln made war against the Law that forged them. The record speaks for itself and the man.
We now begin with Lincoln's first year in office.
When seven Southern states walked out of Congress March 27, 1861,(166) the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution, was lost. The only votes Congress could take under its own rules and parliamentary law, were; to set a time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn with a specific date, time, and place to reconvene.(167)
Instead, Congress adjourned sine die (see-na dee-a), i.e., 'without day,' that not only closes the session, but if no provision is made to reconvene at a specific day and time, such an adjournment dissolves the assembly in the absence of contrary Constitutional provisions or by-laws of the assembly.(168)
Thus, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful legislative authority.(169) The only lawful Constitutional power who could declare war on the South, was no longer lawful. Congress did not re-convene until Lincoln ordered it under his usurped military authority as Commander-in-Chief.
Lincoln funded the War entirely by debt financing with bond issues, T-Bills, and by other means that put the U.S. in bankruptcy by 1863(170) when the Comptroller of the Treasury office was created.
Precisely what is the nature and duties of the Comptroller of the Treasury?
COMPTROLLER. A public officer of a state or municipal corporation, charged with certain duties in relation to the fiscal affairs of the same, principally to examine and audit the accounts of collectors of the public money, to keep records, and report the financial situation from time to time. There are also officers bearing this name in the treasury department of the United States(171)
COMPTROLLER IN BANKRUPTCY. An officer ... whose duty it is to receive from the trustee in each bankruptcy his accounts and periodical statements showing the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and also to call the trustee to account for any misfeasance, neglect, or omission in the discharge of his duties.(172)
The Federal government has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 1863 to the present, in which the Congress sit as trustees. Thus, the following from the 1993 Congressional Record.:
Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.
Mr. TRAFFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.
Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.
We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.(173)
The problem for Congress is, in bankruptcy Congress is "civilly dead," and cannot make true Law,
Debitor non praesumitur donare -- A debtor is not presumed to make a gift.(174)
Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus--He who is placed out of the law [*of their creation] is civilly dead. A bankrupt is, as it were, civilly dead.(175)
Thus, Congress can make no law for all Law is a gift of the Lawgiver. The "civilly dead" cannot be Resurrected except by the Power of Christ. The inability of Congress to make law is seen in official sets of the Titles and Codes. In the Index of Titles in Volume One finds that either;
a. Title II, The Congress is marked with an asterisk which means that Congress exists by Resolution, not positive law, or;
b. All positive law titles are marked by asterisk and Title II, "The Congress" has no asterisk. A footnote states that those marked with an asterisk exist by virtue of positive law.
This is because of the following proclamation made in 1861 by Lincoln:
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents and extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.(176)
In the margin of the above it is stated that Lincoln convened an extraordinary session of Congress in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, and not President of the united States of America. Thus, Congress sits at the pleasure of the Commander-in-Chief in a Roman imperial style government; not by the pleasure of the Good and Lawful Christians in the several states. This is a clear statement of a change in the relation of the "government" to the style of "government." Lincoln continued to call extraordinary sessions throughout his war.(177) Thus, the sleeping war power in the Constitution was usurped by one man who put himself outside it. All he ever created is "civilly dead" in relation to Good and Lawful Christians living in Christ.
The point is, the standing or status or condition of Congress is different from that of the President and the Courts and this change occurred at the beginning of Lincoln's War. Congress does not sit by Constitutional positive law but by a mere resolution, which is merely advisory, not compulsory. They merely indicate what policy may be, but they carry no force of law with them. This is a key to military government. Unless government is permanently established by those who have Law, there is no state of peace. The only ones with Law are Good and Lawful Christians -- not Humanists. The reason is plain: only Christians have a consistent record of success and construction; secular humanists have a consistent record of failure and destruction. This is evident from the definition of Truth, which Law seeks out:
TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself.(178) [*Christ manifests all three requirements.]
The South, as members of the original union, by virtue of their secession, ceased to exist sine die, as did state legislatures in the Northern bloc. This occurred in California, April 27, 1863,(179) and in Connecticut in 1853,(180) who was a leading secessionist states in the North.
The adjournment sine die in 1861 had the same effect as that of the Continental Congress that adjourned sine die to dissolve and terminate its existence before the Constitutional Convention and birth of a new Constitutional Congress. Otherwise, two Congress would have existed simultaneously. Thus, the sine die adjournment of Congress of 1861 cleared the way for the new Federal government created in 1871 by incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation.(181) This incorporation put the District on the same level as the new governments of the States after Lincoln's War:
The government of the District of Columbia provided by the Act of February 21, 1871,(182) is not a mere municipality ... but is to be placed upon the same footing with that of any of the States or Territories within the limits of the law from which it derives its existence.(183)
Thus, the Attorney-General explains for Commanders in the Field, the new governments created in the States, and he relies on the Reconstruction Acts which are still in force and effect.(184)
We see clearly enough that this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten [*Southern] States; the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act. The military government is created by the act.
Both are provisional, and both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress. When that event takes place, both these provisional government are to cease. In contemplation of this act, this military authority and this civil authority are to be carried on together. The people in these States are made subject to both, and must obey both, in their respective jurisdictions.
…There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, but which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed.(185)
Yet, the new State Constitutions merely retained the old form of government and the merely provisional government became permanent and the Reconstruction Acts remain in full force and effect today.(186) And all one need do is look at the post-bellum amendments and see who has "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Further, there is no effective termination date for any of them. Thus, Workmen's Compensation Acts and unemployment acts are extensions of the Freedmen's Bureau act and are purely military in character and nature. Take special notice of the subject-matter following -- the same subject-matter of Lincoln's Proclamations:
Regulation of Labor. The matter of the regulating of labor was mostly restricted to cases of freedmen or colored persons brought by the chances of war within military protection and care. The President, in freeing, by his Proclamation of January 1, 1863, all persons held as slaves in the insurrectionary States and districts, recommended to them "that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages," and further authorized that they be "received into the armed service of the United States." Under this proclamation and repeated legislation of Congress, a large number of such persons were employed in connection with our armies, and some one hundred and forty regiments of colored troops were organized. It was ... mainly under the Act of March 3, 1865, "to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees," by which abandoned and confiscated lands in the insurrectionary States were set apart and assigned "for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen," (and appropriated for the support of this Bureau until 1869,) that the matter of the regulation of labor became an incident of military government. In ...South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida ...such regulation directed by military commanders, and frequent General Orders were issued by them relating to the government, subsistence and employment of the classes of persons indicated in the statute.(187)
Notice in the following who headed the bureau and the functions performed by the bureau:
In March 1865, the Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, [*i.e.,] the Freedmen's Bureau. Set up under the War Department, the bureau was headed by General Oliver O. Howard, and it had as its primary mission the care and welfare of the thousands of Southerners, white and black, whose lives had been uprooted by the war. Being without precedent, the bureau was one of the most important agencies of the Civil War era. With branches in every southern state, it established free schools and hospitals [*benefits], relocated refugees under the provisions of the Homestead Act, distributed millions of food rations, provided legal assistance [*forerunner of the Civil Rights Commission], operated as an employment agency [*forerunner of Employment Development Department or unemployment agency], negotiated contracts for workers (making it the first national arbitration agency between labor and capital[*--a forerunner of the modern union]), and otherwise worked to facilitate the former slave's adjustment to his new status. The bureau was originally established to last just one year after the end of the war, but it was obvious that its services would be needed much longer.
* * *
In retrospect, the Freedmen's Bureau could have become, with public and government support, one of the most effective instruments for the extension of human rights in American history. But white America was not yet ready for that, and the bureau fell far short of its potential. To begin with, it was very underfinanced. Although the Congress appropriated funds for buildings and other facilities, most of the teachers and medical workers were supported by private philanthropic groups. Not only did white Americans acquiesce in--and sometimes vigorously support--the southern objections to the bureau, but the conduct and attitude of the men entrusted with its administration undermined its effectiveness.…In removing subordinates charged with corruption, Howard was often guided by the complaints of influential southern whites that these officials had been doing too much to help the freedmen. In other words, it appears that the white South could have lived with a corrupt bureau, but it could not live with a humanitarian one.(188)
The bureaus services are now furnished by the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. Is Reconstruction over? The Federal courts say that " …the federal civil rights acts [*were] passed during the Reconstruction(189),…
President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, vetoed the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts and the Congressional Record tells us why:
If ever the American citizen should be left to the free exercise of his own judgment, it is when he is engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That work is his work, and it cannot properly be taken out of this hands. All this legislation proceeds upon the contrary assumption that the people of each of these States shall have no constitution, except such as may be arbitrarily dictated by Congress, and formed under the restraint of military rule. A plain statement of facts makes this evident.
In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in the accustomed way by the people. Congress, however, declares that these constitutions are not "loyal and republican," and requires the people to form them anew. What, then, in the opinion of Congress, is necessary to make the constitution of a State loyal and republican? The original act answers the question: It is universal Negro suffrage, a question which the federal constitution saves exclusively to the States themselves. All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other. The existing constitutions of the ten [*Southern] States conform to the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are degrees in republican forms of government their constitutions are more republican now, than when these States, four of which were members of the original thirteen, first became members of the Union.(190) [*And elsewhere he says] The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two distinct grounds, the interference of Congress in matters strictly appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and the establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace.(191)
A singular contradiction is apparent here. Congress declares these local State governments to be illegal governments, and then provides that these illegal governments shall be carried on by federal officers, who are to perform the very duties of its own officers by this illegal State authority. It certainly would be a novel spectacle if Congress should attempt to carry on a legal State government by the agency of its own officers. It is yet more strange that Congress attempts to sustain and carry on an illegal State government by the same federal agency.(192)
Military government follows upon the conquest of one state by another.
1. Military Government is that which is established by a commander over occupied enemy territory. To entitle it to recognition it is necessary that the authority of the State to which the territory permanently belongs should have ceased there to be exercised.(193)
The right of a military occupant to govern, implies the right to determine in what manner, and through what agency, such government is to be conducted. The municipal laws of the place may be left in operation, or suspended, and others enforced. The administration of justice, may be left in the hands of the ordinary officers of the law; or these may be suspended, and others appointed in their place. Civil rights and civil remedies may be suspended, and military laws and courts and proceedings, may be substituted for them, or new legal remedies and civil proceedings, may be introduced.(194)
The power to create civil courts, exists by the laws of war, in a place held in firm possession by a belligerent military occupant; and if their judgments and decrees are held to be binding on all parties during the period of such occupation, as the acts of a de facto government, no valid ground can be assigned for refusing to them a like effect, when pleaded as res judicata before the regular judicial tribunals of the State, since the return of peace.(195)
That the Reconstruction Acts were unlawful and unconstitutional has been recognized by Congress (in later years), the United States Circuit Court(196), and Supreme Court along with the 14th Amendment(197) that covered and "legalized" the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1866.(198) The chronology of these Acts is very important, because the subject-matter never changed. Lincoln's proclamation of September 22, 1862 set the stage for the proclamation of January 1, 1863, the "Emancipation Proclamation." Two years later, "Congress" wrote their version of emancipation. A year later, "Congress" wrote and passed over Johnson's veto, the Civil Rights Act of 1866.(199) Clearly, the policy in the Civil Rights Act as amended, was carried out three years before its actual "enactment" into "law." This was Lincoln's method -- give "Congress" a fait accompli and let them deal with it the best way they could -- Congress gives in because it is already a done deed. The Circuit Court in Washington city fully backed Lincoln's style of administration:
... Congress has the constitutional power to legalize and confirm Executive acts, proclamations, and orders done for the public good, although they were not, when done, authorized by any existing laws; and such legislation by Congress may be made to operate retroactively to confirm what may have been done under such proclamations and orders, so as to be binding upon the Government in regard to contracts made, and the persons with whom they were made; and that the third section of an act of Congress of the 6th day of August, 1861, legalizing the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the army and navy, and calling out and relating to the militia and volunteers of the States, is constitutional and valid.(200)
"Congress" imposed the 14th Amendment on the States it created by the Reconstruction Acts. All the rest of the States passed constitutions that bowed to the supremacy of the new Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land, contrary to God's Law and the maxims of Law:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(201)
Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre--The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land.(202)
These acts remain in full force and effect and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can do anything about it, because, as the above makes clear, they were implemented under military and martial law authority, and the President, as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive is in Charge of Civil Affairs,(203) alone has the power to change by Executive Order, even though Executive Orders are themselves unconstitutional as even the Court of Military Appeals admits.(204) Note that the challenge to the power of the Commander-in-Chief to issue Executive Orders was made in a military court.
Thus, Senator Frank Church stated in 1974:
…it has been Congress' habit to delegate extensive emergency authority -- which continues even when the emergency has passed -- and not to set a terminating date. The United States thus has on the books at least 470 significant emergency powers statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional processes. These laws make no provision for congressional oversight nor do they reserve to Congress a means for terminating the "temporary" emergencies which trigger them into use. No wonder the distinguished political scientist, the late Clinton Rossiter, entitled his post-World War II study on modern democratic states, "Constitutional Dictatorship." Emergency government has become the norm.(205)
Senator Church makes a very pregnant admission that is worthy of careful analysis. Congress has no one to blame but itself for its 'habit' of delegating emergency powers. Its all very convenient, isn't it? Church goes on to make an even more telling admission, still citing Rossiter speaking of Lincoln, he said:
The Constitution can be suspended after all -- by any President of the United States who ascertains and proclaims a widespread territorial revolt. "In the Interval between April 12 and July 4, 1861 a new principle thus appeared in the constitutional system of the United States, namely, that of a temporary dictatorship.(206)
Some assert that Lincoln's acts apply only to the South. But, under the doctrine of the Interstate Commerce clause,(207) it says that:
No statute of the State of Arkansas prohibits the low and lawless forms of humanity from entering the State. Under the Interstate Commerce clause and the 14th Amendment, they now have that right.(208)
Thus, the acts apply to all the States where there are civil rights given by Congress, and are enforced by military authority in all courts that fly the gold-fringed flag of the United States. Some say the inferior courts where these flags fly are not military. But, Supreme Court Justice Field has said:
The power and jurisdiction of these courts were the subject of frequent consideration during the late war by the Judge-Advocate-General of the army, and by him were brought to the attention of the Secretary of War and the President. His opinions upon these subjects, when approved by the Department of War, were adopted as directions of the executive head of the government for the guidance of the officers of the army. And it is impossible to read the opinions without perceiving in almost every line that the jurisdiction of the tribunals was limited to offenses of a petty character, and that the government intended that such jurisdiction should not in any case be enlarged. By them it was declared that a General commanding a department, in which the ordinary criminal courts were suspended, was authorized, under circumstances requiring the prompt administration of justice, to appoint a provost judge for the trial of minor offenses, but that the graver violations of the law should be referred to military commissions; that the provost court was a tribunal whose jurisdiction was derived from the customs of war, and was unknown to our legislation; that it had no jurisdiction of offenses of soldiers triable before a court-martial or military commission; and that the judgment of the Provost Court at New Orleans, directing the imprisonment of men at Ship Island and the Dry Tortugas for desertion, marauding, mutiny, robbery, and larceny, was without sanction of law and wholly void. 'The jurisdiction of a provost court,' said one of these opinions, 'should be confined to cases of police merely, to wit: such cases as are summarily disposed of daily by the police courts in our large cities, as, for instance, cases of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, assault and battery, and of violation of such civil ordinances or military regulations as may be in force for the government of the locality. The provost judge supplies the place of the local police magistrate in promptly acting upon the class of cases described, without, at the same time, being necessitated (as a formal military commission would be) to preserve a detailed record of the testimony and proceedings in each case.'
In another case, where an order of a commander of a department authorized a provost court to settle questions of title to personal property, it was declared that that was a subject of which no military court could properly take cognizance, and the department commander was advised that the jurisdiction of such tribunals such as provost courts, in time of war, could only be extended to matters of police. [*See record of opinions in the office of the Judge-Advocate-General, vol. II, 14; vol. VI, 635, 639; vol. XII, 386, vol. XIII, 392, vol. XV, 519. An excellent digest of these opinions was prepared by Major W. Winthrop, of the United States Army, in 1868, and published by authority of the Secretary of War.](209)
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES AND CREATION OF COURTS. In the instance referred to in Leitensdorfer v. Webb, above cited, a part of the provisional government established in New Mexico by the commander of the invading army, and held legal and operative by the Supreme Court, was a 'judicial system' consisting of a superior or appellate court, and circuit courts, whose jurisdiction was also specifically defined.(210) In the late civil war there was established at New Orleans by the President, by an order of October 20, 1862, a civil court entitled the 'Provisional Court of Louisiana,' with both civil and criminal jurisdiction.(211) The authority of this court to hear and determine a cause in admiralty was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Grapeshot(212); and its judgment for the recovery of a mortgage debt of 80,000, and execution issued for the sale of the mortgaged premises, were by the same court recognized as valid in Burke v. Miltenburger.(213) As to its jurisdiction of crimes, this appears maintained in an extended opinion of its judge, Hon. C. A. Peabody, in the cases of U.S. v. Reiter and Louis, charged with murder and arson.(214)
... further, Mechs. & Traders' Bank v. Union Bank(215), affirmed the legality of a judgment rendered by another war court--the 'Provost Court of New Orleans,' established by the Department Commander in 1862(216), in an action for the recovery of a loan of $130,000.
Other Provost Courts, with a jurisdiction assimilated in general to that of justices' or police courts, were established ... by military commanders during the war; as--for example--the 'Provost Court of the Department of the Gulf'(217) a 'Provost Court for the Department of Virginia,'(218) a 'Provost Court for the State of Texas,'(219) a 'Provost Court of the Department of Arkansas,'(220) Provost Courts for the Posts of Vicksburg and Natchez,'(221) 'Superior' and 'Circuit' Provost Courts in Sub-Districts of the Department of the South, (222) 'Post Provost Courts' in the Department of South Carolina,(223) a Provost Court at Alexandria, Va., whose jurisdiction was confined to cases in which colored persons were interested.(224)
The proceedings in civil cases of a further war-court, established by the Department Commander in Memphis in 1863, designated a 'Civil Commission,' has been the subject of judicial examination, and its jurisdiction has been sustained by the courts of Tennessee.(225)
[In] a 'Court of Conciliation,' consisting of three 'Arbitrators,' was established by Maj. Gen. Halleck at Richmond in 1865,(226) [which was] to adjudicate actions of debt 'where the contracts were made upon the basis of confederate currency,' which, it is added, 'now has no legal existence.'
As to this class of courts, it is to be said in general--that it is not only within the power of the commander, but, 'for the security of persons and property and for the administration of justice,'(227) it often becomes his duty, to establish the same; that they are as legally authorized as any other courts of the land; and that their orders, decrees and records are entitled to the same full faith and credit as those of any other lawfully constituted tribunals.(228)
As illustrating the authority and jurisdiction of the courts established by military power during the occupation of the enemy's country in the late war, the remarks of Chief Justice Chase in his Address to the Bar, at Raleigh, No. Ca., in June, 1867, may well be cited, as follows:--'The national military authorities took the place of all ordinary civil jurisdiction or controlled its exercise. All courts, whether state or national, were subordinated to military supremacy, and acted, when they acted at all, under such limitations and in such cases as the commanding general, under the directions of the President, thought fit to prescribe. Their process might be disregarded and their judgments and decrees set aside by military orders.… The military tribunals, at that time, and under the existing circumstances, were competent to the exercise of all jurisdiction, criminal and civil, which belongs under ordinary circumstances to civil courts.(229)
The civil court, as a branch of the civil government under the law of war and conquest, should--it need hardly be repeated--properly be established by the commander of the army of occupation. An inferior officer cannot in general be authorized to exercise such right of sovereignty.(230)
All this was done in the name of democracy. And in truth, history does not record a more drastic application of the democratic dogma. In addition to the sudden creation of the new Negro electorate, the Radicals set up new state constitutions…reformed judicial procedure, court organization, and county organization, and established, on paper at least, a broad conception of the government's responsibility for the people's welfare that was new to the South.(231)
Thus, new courts were created as military courts. Why? This is a question that secular humanists can never answer because they have no Law. Only the Good and Lawful Christian has and can evidence Law, and it will be answered when they understand the Law, their relationship to that Law and its Giver.
Some say the gold-fringed flag in the courts is an admiralty flag. This is mere myth. The truth is, admiralty is limited only to certain cases. The following may help.
ADMIRALTY: A tribunal exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, or offences.(232)
The court of original admiralty jurisdiction in the United States is the United States District Court. From this court causes could formerly be removed in certain cases, to the Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court.(233) [And, Admiralty law] ... extends to the navigable rivers of the United States, whether tidal or not, the lakes, and the waters connecting them;…to a stream tributary to the lakes, but lying entirely within one state;…etc.(234)
It is evident that land courts are not admiralty courts and the flag that flies therein is not an admiralty flag either. But, what does such a flag signify? Is fringe just decoration? To answer these questions we must consider President Dwight D. Eisenhower's, E.O.,(235) the Code of Federal Regulations,(236) and Codes:
…a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides.(237)
The President controls deviation from regular flags, by E.O., in his office as Commander-in-Chief. Thus:
The Fringe is strictly within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy."(238)
The continued use of fringe is prescribed in current Army regulations.(239) And, "Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags.(240)
According to Army Regulations,
"…the Flag is trimmed on three sides with a Fringe of Gold, 2 ½ wide," and that,
"such flags are flown indoors, only in military courtrooms."
…the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations.(241)
Thus, Presidents sit not only as President and Commander-in-Chief who in this capacity issues Executive orders(242) which conduct Civil Affairs; but also as a Chief Executive, who issues proclamations.(243) The Postmaster is not only the Postmaster over the Lawful postal venues such as general delivery, but he is also the Postmaster of the commercial side and Chief Executive Officer of the Postal Service. That such a thing is even possible may boggle the mind but:
Why does this flag fly in all Federal, State, County, and City courts if they are not military courts? Why does the U.S. flag fly over, or above, all State flags. Why does this flag fly inland? This never happened before 1861. Does this specific year ring a bell with anyone? One remark must be made here that there is no mention of a gold fringe on the flag of the United States of America in the Regulations Governing the Armies of the United States, (1861), two years before Lieber's Code, i.e., "General Orders 100." The fringe also has to do with the outstanding debt of the U.S. corporation and the power of its military to make good on collecting the debt from those "enjoying the benefit of protection of their civil rights." In other words, the bondholders bought and own the flag and what it represents so they can compel performance.
This explains the function of the local military court, i.e., municipal courts. These summary courts function not according to law but by local rules, and "The Manual of Courts Martial,"(244) as collectors on the debt. The law of such courts is The 1933 War Powers Act, which is admitted -- even in ordinary newspapers.(245) So much for the gold fringe on U.S. flags.
In all the Reconstruction Acts debate, the so-called guarantee of a republican form of government clause, in the Constitution,(246) is ignored. Politicians today, never speak of the United States government as a republic, but as a democracy, albeit a "representative one." The reason is, a democracy is the highest form of government that can exist under military government and martial law. A republican form and a martial law government cannot co-exist because a military government comes into existence only when the republican form is lost and the courts of the republic cease to exist, or are impaired in their duties..
Question: Is the military established by the Organic Law empowered by that Law to impair the Lawful operation of the departments established by that Law? If so, then constitutions are not the answer. If not, then by what Law are they contained?
Clearly, all governments in America today, are under a military authority. Lincoln made that quite clear. Yet, such governments have no power to abolish the Lawful offices of the original governments, which still exist in a de jure, not de facto, state. That is, they still exist in Law but not in fact.
Where a public officer is declared by law by virtue of his office ex officio - to be also the incumbent of another public office, the two offices are as distinct as though occupied by different persons.(247)
The case cited concerned the offices of county Clerk and the Clerk of the superior court, which is the general court that hears common law actions. Thus, the Clerk not only serves as County Clerk for the bankrupt local governments but he also serves as the county Clerk for At-law courts:
The constitution provides that the county clerks shall be ex-officio clerks of the courts of record in and for their respective counties or cities and counties.(248) And the code provides that the county clerk is an ex officio clerk of the superior court, and shall perform the duties required of him by law; and such as may be prescribed in statute.(249) Those provisions make it the duty of the county clerk to act as clerk of the superior court and thus combine the two offices.(250)
This is merely the Civil Affairs side of the military government in action:
CIVIL AFFAIRS. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations in order to facilitate military operations and consolidate operational objectives. Civil affairs may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations.(251)
Since Lincoln, all Presidents rule by Executive Order. Lincoln wrote only a few during his tenure. Executive Order No. 1,(252) was executed April 15, 1861. Other E.O's are issued under the Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Adjutant General, Treasury, and others.
A distinction between the capacities attaching to the Office of President must be made at this point, because this is key to what follows, and your perception of what the government truly is today. By knowing this you will be able to penetrate the veil which gives the illusion of government:
By reason of the functional division of governmental power in the United States and the constitutional grants thereof to separate departments, the general principle is that Congress or the legislature of a state cannot transfer the legislative powers vested in them to the judicial or executive departments; but although a legislative body cannot delegate its power to make laws, 'yet, having enacted statutes, it may invest executive officers or boards or commissions created for the purpose with authority to make rules and regulations for the practical administration of such statutes in matters of detail and to enforce the same, and also to determine the existence of the facts or conditions on which the application of the law depends.'(253)
However, the President of the United States has authority to promulgate proclamations, 'either on his own authority or as authorized or directed by the Constitution or an act of Congress. While they have not the force of law, they are, in the latter case, of binding effect. [*How?] In English law, a proclamation is 'a notice publicly given of any thing whereof the king thinks fit to advertise his subjects.' In American law, it is a formal and official public notice, issued by the chief executive in his own name, intended for the notice of all persons who may be concerned [*those within the venue and jurisdiction], announcing some statute or treaty, or some public act or determination, or intended action, of the executive department, which otherwise might not be so widely or so quickly promulgated. The making of proclamations is not an assumption of legislative powers.…The authority of the President to issue proclamations is sometimes derived from acts of Congress specifically empowering him to do so in relation to a particular matter, and in other cases appears to be derived from his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'(254)
The President also has authority to issue executive orders and his subordinates have authority to promulgate rules for the regulation of the internal affairs and procedure of the executive department and its subdivisions; but the rules and orders promulgated by the President or by the heads of departments under his authority relating to the conduct of public business or to the civil service or other administrative matters 'have not the force of law and are not statutes in any sense; and although they are effective for the internal control and government of the executive departments, courts of equity have no jurisdiction or authority to enforce them.'(255)
These proclamations and E.O.'s need some "court" for enforcement. The A.B.A. can help in understanding this. None of these "legal" acts have any thing to do with Good and Lawful Christians:
Executive Courts (Administrative Agencies) a conglomerate of which, according to the committee's [A.B.A. Rpt. of the Special Committee on Administrative Law] last count (as of January, 1935) consisted of 73 federal tribunals exercising judicial power in 267 classes of cases. These agencies vary in character over a wide range, from individuals (including the President and the several heads of departments) and bureaus in the executive branch of the government to independent boards and commissions. The tenure of their members is in no case during good behavior nor are they protected against diminution of compensation or abolition of their offices. The tenure varies from a definite term of years (subject to removal for grounds expressed in vague, general language) to a day-to-day employment held at the whim of executive officials. The method of appointment varies from nomination by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to the uncontrolled hiring and firing of a subordinate by a superior. The functions exercised by these agencies run the whole gamut from the purely judicial, through doubtful zones in judicial-executive and the judicial-legislative borderlands, into undisputed provinces of the executive and the legislative. Their distinguishing feature, from the point of view of the present study, is that, unlike the constitutional courts and the legislative courts, they represent combinations of prosecutor and judge, or of prosecutor, legislator, and judge, over the same subject matter. The decisions of these agencies may be made subject to review on both the law and the facts by legislative courts,(256) but even in cases of an indubitably judicial character their decisions may not be reviewed by constitutional courts except, generally speaking, as to questions of law (collateral attack).(257)
The law always requires notice of its promulgation. Where are proclamations and E.O.'s promulgated? In the "Federal Register," which operates more like a private newspaper than a general publication. This stems from the venue of proclamations and E.O.'s that apply only to "persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and are concerned with privileges offered by the Congress under legislative martial rule, and the policies governing them, they are in fact, private law:
In its 1934 report the committee [A.B.A. Spec. Com. on Admin. Law] undertook to list several desirable reforms of existing administrative machinery, among them being the following:
"Rules, regulations, and other exercises of legislative power by executive or administrative officials should be made easily and readily available at some central office, and, with appropriate provision for emergency cases, should be subjected to certain requirements by way of registration and publication as prerequisite to their going into force and effect. From 59 A.B.A.Rep. 540."
In 1935 Congress enacted a statute, known as the Federal Register Act,(258) which, if properly administered, will meet the need. The Act established the Division of the Federal Register, administered by a director under the general superintendence of the Archivist of the National Archives. The director is charged with custody and (together with the public printer) with the printing and distribution of all documents(259) required or permitted to be published under Section 5 of the Act.
Documents Subject to Publication.--Section 5 provides for publication in the Federal Register of the following:
1. All Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, except such as have no general applicability and legal effect or are effective only against federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof.
2. Such documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine from time to time have general applicability and legal effect.
3. Such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by Act of Congress.
4. Such other documents or classes of documents as may be authorized to be published pursuant to the act by regulations prescribed with the approval of the President.
Documents which are exempt from publication are (1) documents effective only against federal agencies or officers of the United States; (2) documents which the Administrative Committee [*of the Federal Register Division (executive branch)] determines to have no general applicability and legal effect; (3) treaties, conventions, protocols, and other international agreements, or proclamations thereof by the President. The Federal Register is not permitted to publish any comments or news.
General Applicability and Legal Effect.--First, the Act mandatively provides that every document or order which prescribes a penalty is deemed to have general applicability and legal effect. Second, the Act authorizes the President in his discretion to determine what classes of documents have general applicability and legal effect.(260)
Privilegium est quasi privata lex--A privilege is, as it were, a private law.(261)
A privilege is a grant of a special right and immunity.(262)
Generalized and divested of the special form which it assumes under a monarchical government based on feudal traditions, a franchise is a right, privilege, or power of public concern, which ought not to be exercised by private individuals at their mere will or pleasure, but should be reserved for public control and administration, either by the government directly, or by public agents, acting under such conditions and regulations as the government may impose in the public interest and for the public security. No persons can make themselves a body corporate and political without legislative authority. Corporate capacity is a franchise.(263)
Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati--The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals.(264)
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.(265)
This private law is a license, and not a contract, for the receiver of the privilege has no action enforceable against the giver of the privilege:
A dispensation or license properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property in any thing, but only makes an action lawful which without it had been unlawful.(266)
A license is a mere privilege without enforceable rights, which distinguishes it from an easement giving definite property rights enforceable against all the world.(267)
A sovereign [*the lawgiver] is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d'autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy.(271) Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitative.(272)
So, whatever is established by the Commander-in-Chief or "Congress," is in derogation of the Christian common Law, and: One, is a privilege "protected by the military power of the Union"; and, Two, may be taxed constitutionally as an excise for revenue purposes:
An excise tax is an indirect or privilege tax.(273)
DEROGATION. The partial abrogation of a law. To derogate from a law is to enact something which impairs its utility and force; to abrogate a law is to abolish it entirely. (274)
All statutes are to be construed with reference to the provisions of the common law, and provisions in derogation of the common law are held strictly.(275)
The [*Federal] Civil Rights Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed.(276)
This has everything to do with exercising your traditionally vested Right of Avoidance.
Lincoln had no authority to issue E.O.'s that had effect in, or could be carried into, the States, and he knew it. Because he was an experienced lawyer, he knew such E.O.'s applied only to administrative details in the Executive department, and had no force of law any where in a State.(277) He knew courts of equity could not enforce such orders for lack of jurisdiction or authority over them.(278) Thus, in the statues we find that he issued proclamations for 75,000 Federal Troops and the extraordinary session of Congress, all of which were issued in his own name (279) and applied only to certain classes of persons--not Good and Lawful Christians. Was the war his war? or was the war of that government "ordained and established" by the Christian people in the several united States of America against those states whose Lawful basis is Christianity? Thus, he commissioned a special code to 'govern' his acts under martial law. This code satisfied Lincoln's view of what martial law should be; not what in fact it was, before Lincoln.
This took place in spite of the fact that the Christian common Law of America, derived from England, prohibited the imposition of martial law on the people, because they are not impressed with a military character, but a Good and Lawful Christian character(280) impressed by the seal of the Holy Spirit.
This came by virtue of the judgment rendered on a Petition of Right issued in 1628 by Lord Coke against Charles I, who obeyed the writ and from that time on, martial law was prohibited in England and America.(281) This also did two other important things in Law: One, it did away with the "sovereign prerogative" of imposing martial rule on Good and Lawful Christian people at whim; and, Two, it ended the "sovereign immunity" of the king. Now he was subject to a writ issued against him from Law over which he had no jurisdiction, power, right, or authority. This is the basis of the Abatements in Part Three of the "Book of the Hundreds."
Lieber's Code sought to justify Lincoln's seizure of power and destruction of a Lawful judiciary in ex parte Merryman. The Lieber Instructions,(282) extended The Laws of War and International law beyond the borders of Washington, D.C. For the first time Lincoln imposed foreign law in the States, in spite of the fact that the states already had Christianity governing them. This has very significant implications as we will see later.
The corporate/military United States government created by the will and force of one infidel became the conqueror and all States of the Union were re-formed after the War as franchisees of the Federal government. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is tied to the date when such states enacted the Field Code as law. This Code was a codification of the commercial, civil, and common law, and was adopted first, by New York and then by all the States (except Louisiana). California adopted it in 1872.
Now, the key question here is, to whom would this new Code apply? The answer is, it applied to the new commercial 'persons' deemed "citizens" in the resurrected Roman "civil" law "created" in the aftermath of Lincoln's War.
But, what "law" is common to all these "citizens?" It is that law which "created" the "persons" made "citizens," in the image and likeness of the Field Code. And, the "common law" of these "persons" or "citizens" is none other than the Field Code, which is commercial from stem to stern.
Thus, in the new constitutions "created" in the aftermath of Lincoln's War when the States had been conquered we find that the "commercial common law" is styled as the "common law." Thus, in all State Codes today, we find a phrase such as the following:
The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to, or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.(283)
The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. The Code establishes the law of this State respecting the subjects to which it relates, and its provisions and all proceedings under it are to be liberally construed with a view to effect its object and to promote justice.(284)
For anyone who has tried to use Christian common law in these "courts" you know all too well that the common law enforced by these "courts" is utterly foreign and entirely statutory.
We have said that the States are now slaves of the Federal power, or words to that effect. For those who doubt this, here is a cite from the current California Constitution:
The State of California is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.(285)
The Suffrage requirements to vote in State and Federal elections, are more evidence of the changed status of the States. Usually, this is worded something like,
Every native citizen of the United States, etc.(286)
Notice the change of status of the voter. This is radically different from the idea of the framers who,
…intended the States to determine the qualifications of their own voters for state offices, because those qualifications were adopted for federal offices unless Congress directs otherwise under Article I, section 4. It is a plain fact of history that the framers never imagined that the national Congress would set the qualifications for voters in every election from President to local constable or village alderman. ...the whole Constitution reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in state and local elections, except to the limited extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically narrowed the powers of the States. Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-four, each of which has assumed that the States had general supervisory power over state elections, are examples of express limitations on the power of the States to govern themselves.…
Of course, the original design of the Founding Fathers was altered by the Civil War Amendments and various other amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments have expressly authorized Congress to 'enforce' the limited prohibitions of those amendments by 'appropriate legislation.'…
Above all else, the framers of the Civil War Amendments intended to deny to the States the power to discriminate against persons on account of their race.(287)
This is a repetition of what the United States Supreme Court said in Ex parte Yarbrough.(288).
Is this an admission or confession, or not? The election process has been changed, because it was, and still is, the will of the bondholders holding all of those 10-40 and 5-20 bonds from Lincoln's War vs. All Christian States. The bondholders now dictate a policy that ensures their getting a return on their investment in the blood shed during Lincoln's War, i.e., "…the borrower is servant to the lender." "Drivers," "brokers," "residents," "consumers" "taxpayers," "homeowners," "employees," "persons," and other commercial franchisees licensed by or under the rules of war, now have the power to elect "persons" in return for allegiance to, and payment of, the public debt owed to the financiers of Lincoln's War, which according to the purported 14th Amendment(289) cannot be questioned by such "persons," etc., because they are the surety or guarantors of the debt payments to the collection agency under the guidance of the Federal Reserve Accounting House. For those of you who take the benefit of any war measure under Lincoln, see footnote(290) Thus, the "United States" leaped from its Christian foundations to be independent of the states, and control was lost to an anti-Christian, secular government, resting in commerce. And, all this in a vain attempt to stay engaged in commercial enterprise to pay off its bloody war bonds.(291) If Lincoln issued proclamations in his own name and convened extraordinary sessions of Congress, who really owes that debt? Lincoln did, but those today who partake of those unlawful usurpations, and those who carry forward such usurpations in formulating policy or as beneficiary of such policy, are the true debtors.(292) Is it necessary to explain why it doesn't matter who you elect to office? The script doesn't change because the debt is larger -- just the actors change. The secular form of worship, not a Christian form of worship, is what was implemented by the Lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, U.S. Grant, and W. T. Sherman.
Lincoln's income tax in 1863, the first ever, was not used to fund the war; but to make payments on the debt during a time of confusion, when no one, "in their right mind" would want to appear "unpatriotic" by not paying their "fair share" to Lincoln's cause of "maintaining the Union." This ruse of war has been used by every President since Lincoln. No one at that time realized that the war was to Reconstruct the Union, from a voluntary consociation of Christian states under God, to a federal corporation of franchisees under the President and his bondholders, nor that it would be debt financed through debasement, deceit and perversion.
The following(293) makes full disclosure of the new voting laws created by The Reconstruction Acts:
This existing government (under presidential Reconstruction by Andrew Johnson) is not set aside; it is recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of persons eligible to office, and the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it.
* * *
Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this [*the 2nd Reconstruction] act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions.
* * *
We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States"--not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation--'as hereinafter prescribed.'
* * *
There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed.(294)
Again, this did not apply only to the South. This is seen in the fact that in 1862, West Virginia was, by presidential proclamation, carved out of Virginia and admitted as a State of the Union aligned with Lincoln -- and their constitution was dictated to them. And, in 1863, Lincoln ordered the military governor of Louisiana to call a constitutional convention to frame a new constitution embodying his infidel philosophy of fatalism, rationalism, and tribute to the Roman gods. What was wrong with their existing constitution? Nothing, as far as the Good and Lawful Christian people in that state were concerned.
All Northern States later changed their constitutions to fit better in Lincoln's New World of heavy commerce under licensure by the laws of war, and no mention is made of Biblical Christianity under the Law of Peace. Generally, wording in these constitutions is that of the oath of allegiance for granting amnesty.
To further implement secular, mundane and irreligious changes, North and South, the Voting Rights Acts, as amended, were passed and are operative in all States, not just Southern States.
If the original Union were intact, there would be no need for Reconstruction. Why would one reconstruct something that never was damaged or destroyed? If Lincoln's War was fought strictly "to save the Union," or as Lincoln says, 'to vindicate the rights of the Federal government,' then Reconstruction was not necessary. Vindicating the rights of a fiction is not tolerated in Christian states, for God's Law has no place for fictions. The States would have been left intact, and depending on their favor, the federal government would continue to exist as it did before -- dependent on that favor. But as one writer put it in 1885:
Never till the days of reconstruction was it suspected that our system recognized any power outside the people of a state, the authority to organize a government for the state. That the judiciary established a view so entirely repugnant to all established precedent, is significant of the embarrassments with which eras of political violence must always surround the department closely bound to the past.(295)
Reconstruction established an Imperial, "provisional" regime as admitted by the Supreme Court in 1877:
We do not question the doctrines of public law which have been invoked, nor their application in proper cases; but it will be found, ... that there is an essential difference between the governments of the Confederate States and those de facto governments. The latter are of two kinds. One of them is such as exists after it has expelled the regular government from the seats of power and the public offices, and established its own functionaries in their places, so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation....As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained; its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled.(296)
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (297)
…in the choice of means for obtaining an end, however good, congress cannot authorize the trial of any person, not impressed with a military character, for any infamous crime whatever, except by means of a grand jury first accusing, and a trial jury afterwards deciding the accusation. This prohibition is fatal to the military government of civilians, wherever, whenever, and under whatever circumstances attempted. Such a government cannot exist without military courts, military arrests, and military trials.(298)
Thus, only those who have a military connection, i.e., take any benefit from any act done during Lincoln's War or if one otherwise accepts the fruits of it, have a "military character" impressed upon them which Judge Field argues gives the de facto government jurisdiction. And, those who sit in this de facto government have that same "military character" impressed on them. Now, read Christ's reply to the Pharisees in its proper light:
"Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's [*the military character created in the image and likeness of Caesar]; and to God the things of God." Mark 12:17 [*Insertion added]
If this has not brought home to you that today's 'government' is not based on Christ, the Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, in 1921, made this observation:
But there are two growing periods of our common law system; two periods in which rules and doctrines were formative, in which our authorities summed up the past for us and gave us principles for the future. These periods are (1) the classical common-law period, the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and (2) the period that some day, when the history of the common law as a law of the world comes to be written, will be regarded as no less classical than the first -- the period of legal development in the United States that came to an end with the Civil War.(299)
Many so-called "patriots" demand the "rights of our forefathers," yet, deny the sole Source of those Rights -- Almighty God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ and the Christian common Law which preserves them. If Christ is denied, then they are denied by Him to the Father. Hence, these 'patriots' have no Rights common in all Good and Lawful Christians, and for this reason have no standing in Law, because it is a venue separate and distinct from equity:
Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled.(300)
The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations [*not human relations] are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.(301)
Just as the so-called "voting rights" of "persons" have a different source than Almighty God, they must also have a different form of government, which declares a different form of worship.(302)
By God's Law, a Republican form of government (res communis) is espoused -- note Acts 2:44 and 4:32. By man's law, a democracy is espoused, because it gives the greatest confusion to the masses and allows the wielders of power the greatest freedom from restraint by the masses. And the form of law used to perform all this deception is Roman Imperial law. Remember, the outward forms may look the same, but inside the Roman system "…is a roaring lion.....seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8
With all this evidence on record, it is very clear that 'christian Amerika' today does not even remotely resemble the Christian America of the Puritans.
To participate in "voting" any longer is evidence of who you are owned by, and the god you worship:
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [*applicable to "persons"], but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?(303)
Is it not unrighteous to vote for oppressors? Is it not unrighteous to vote for bonds which enslave your unborn children? Note the following scene:
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.(304)
Is this not the same as giving birth to an infant and shackling them to a bonded debt you contracted for?
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may [your] posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Sam Adams.
Later, the Lieber Code put the U.S. into the 1874 Brussels Conference (three years after Washington, D.C., became a corporation), and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 wherein Lincoln's military dictatorship is further evidenced by the Code:
This important code has a significant history. Two men were especially active in its preparation -- Henry W. Halleck, general in chief of the Union armies, and Francis Lieber, noted German-American expert in political science. Born in Germany, Lieber had served at Waterloo, lying all night on that battlefield (a fact he often recalled in later life), had been wounded at Namur (1815), had previously dreamed of assassinating Napoleon, had studied and traveled in Europe, and had come to the United States in 1827. He wrote elaborate treatises and became a distinguished authority on public law. After productive literary work at Boston and Philadelphia he served for twenty-one years as professor in South Carolina College at Columbia.(305)
With a friendliness towards the radical Republicans, a hatred of slavery, and a strong ethical sense, Lieber had a comprehensive understanding of law and government throughout the world and down the ages. Having three sons in the army (one in Confederate service), Lieber knew the agony of scanning casualty lists and the personal tragedy of learning that one of his sons was killed in the war and another severely wounded.(306) His interest in (European) military practices was not merely academic as he observed the lack of adequate system concerning the usages of war. A variety and multiplicity of questions called for clarification: the distinction between soldiers and guerrillas or bushwhackers, the problem of runaway slaves (whose return by McClellan aroused Lieber's indignation), pillage, espionage, the proper penalty for spies (should it be death?), retaliation, flags of truce, treatment of prisoners of war, exchange of prisoners, stealing, burning of homes, attitude toward non-combatants, seizure and destruction of private property, compensation for such destruction, occupation of enemy territory, and -- as a subject of special interest -- the wartime problem of Negro emancipation.
Coming up through Lieber's elaborate study and his voluminous correspondence with Halleck, the military code took shape with the assistance of a special board of army officers headed by General E. A. Hitchcock, and was issued May 1863. It appeared as 'General Orders No. 100: Instructions for the Government of the [*presidential] Armies of the United States in the Field.'(307)
One may speak of this as an instance of presidential legislation. It is difficult to trace Lincoln's personal attention to the actual codification, but here was an essentially legislative duty performed entirely within the executive domain. The Lieber code could have been adopted by Congress and if so adopted it would have been considered a proper exercise of the congressional power, under the Constitution, to 'make Rules for the Government of the land and naval Forces.' Congress, however, despite all its elaborate attention to the 'conduct' of the war, did not perform the task, or even undertake it. It was through the executive branch that the great talents of Lieber were utilized, and thus one of the most important legal tasks of the war was accomplished by expert skill under presidential authority. Through the decades since the Civil War the code has undergone modification and development as regulations for the armies and manuals for service schools. Its basic principles have re-appeared in Hague conventions. The fact that military practices in 'World War I' and 'World War II' have departed from the declared standards of these conventions (though they have not been formally revoked) is no disparagement of the work of Lieber."(308)
The complaint has often been issued that there was no public proclamation of martial law. But, as the Lieber Instructions make clear, such a proclamation is not necessary.
A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest."(309)
That a declaration of war was never declared is seen where, "A state of war may exist without a declaration on either side."(310) On Lincoln's licensing scheme:
It being, then, settled that a war may exist, and yet that trading with the enemy, or commercial intercourse, may be allowable, it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his Proclamations, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the Proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, 'In every event, the utmost care would be observed, consistently with the re-possession of the forts, places and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.' Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the Proclamation existed, as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment--the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the Proclamation of April 15, 1861 12 Stat. at Large 1258, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it (The Prize Cases), but he did not prior to his second Proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade. Even then, the war was only inferentially recognized; and the measures proposed were avowed to be 'With a view to * * * the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled.' The reference here was plainly to citizens of the insurrectionary States; and the purpose avowed appears to be inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies, and, consequently, debarred from intercourse with the inhabitants of States not in insurrection. The only interference with the business relation of citizens in all parts of the country, contemplated by the Proclamation, seems to have been such as the blockade might cause. And that it was understood to be an assent by the Executive to continued business intercourse may be inferred from the subsequent action of the government (of which we may take judicial notice) in continuing the mail service in Louisiana and the other insurrectionary States long after the blockade was declared. If it was not such an assent or permission, it was well fitted to deceive the public. But in a civil war, more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is imperative that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war."(311)
It now makes sense why the National Guard is Federalized(312) and why all local police, the Sheriff's Department, and the highway patrol or state police, are placed under the authority of the National Guard, and further why, in all National Guard Armories there are Regular Army personnel on duty at all times. This is necessary in order to fulfill the requirements of international and military law, in that the conquering power must at all times maintain active and notorious, open occupation of the land in order the justify the imposition of martial law and a military government within a State.
The necessity to maintain active occupation of a State is to justify the use of military tribunals in the collection of revenue, as the Leiber Code goes on to say in the same Section, Article 10, that:
Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.(313)
Is it mere 'coincidence' that the I.R.S. was born during Lincoln's War, in 1861 as the Internal Revenue Bureau? It collected war reparations from the conquered peoples in the South. Later, F.D. Roosevelt went Lincoln one better when he extended the same unconstitutional acts to all the states.
The Lieber Code then states that:
A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.(314)
The distinction between public and private property is important in the Laws of War:
Private property on land, is now, as a general rule of war, exempt from seizure or confiscation; and this general exemption extends even to cases of absolute and unqualified conquest. Even where the conquest of a country is confirmed by the unconditional relinquishment of sovereignty by the former owner, there can be no general or partial transmutation of private property, in virtue of any rights of conquest.(315)
[It] is very unusual ... for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country. The modern usage of nations, which has become law would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights or property remain undisturbed. If this be the modern rule, even in cases of conquest, who can doubt its application to the case of an amicable cession of territory?(316)
Are Christians bound to obey the "law" of military authorities if it conflicts with God's Law?
Again it may be asked, what must be done when a human law does not agree with the Divine Law? Must such law be obeyed? Men have no right to make a law that is contrary to the Law of God; and we are not bound to obey it.(317)
The reason is that pleading Christianity as Lawful justification for an act is a political question:
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity….(318)
…The Christian religion is, of course, recognized by the government, yet not so as to draw invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, etc.;…(319)
Military regulations, Lincoln's Proclamations, and Congress' Civil Rights Acts, all lose efficacy when they invoke a political question:
The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied.(320)
In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied.(321)
The allegiance of people and land to a specific law system is always a political question. (Note Georgia v. Stanton and Mississippi v. Johnson). Both these cases were brought in equity, and a political question is not decided on equitable principles. If it were, the strong could never invade the weak.
We come now to the means whereby Lincoln funded his war.
The means whereby Lincoln funded his War were unique to his time, but were originally developed in ancient Rome under the Caesar's. They have been used by all Presidents since then in more or less the same form, and for the same reasons. In speaking of the War Treasury, Randall says;
In struggling with the complications of wartime finance, the government of the United States found itself involved in four major problems; loans, taxes, the paper money problem, and the creation of a national banking system. Speaking broadly, the government financed itself during the war chiefly by loans, and paper money:(322)
The types of funding sources and the amount of money raised by each are revealing. From Treasury notes at various rates of interest Lincoln raised approximately $800,000,000. From bonds of various types over $900,000,000 was raised. The infamous "Greenbacks" brought $450,000,00 to Lincoln's War Chest. The balance was raised in smaller amounts, such as the Thirty Year bonds sold to the Central Pacific Railroad at 6% interest which raised a paltry $1,258,000. But, at the War's end, the total debt for Lincoln's War was $2,682,593,026.53, a staggering sum in 1865.(323)
Few people imagined ... what the economic burden of the war would be. When, at the end of 1861, the customary national income of 80 million dollars a year was measured against an expense of 2 million dollars a day, men began to see what was involved. Against this unexpected burden President Lincoln had been authorized to issue 1 billion [*that's billion with a "b"] dollars in securities for sale upon the market. These promises to pay at once fell below par. Bankers raised the rate of interest on loans to the United States government 2 per cent higher than the usual commercial rate. [*Making money the old fashioned way -- gouging the government in a funds transfer scheme -- became common practice.](324)
But, one funding scheme used the so-called 1040 Bonds, which were to run not less than 10 nor more than 40 years at 7.13% interest, with a premium of 4.13% over face value, which was lower than the 7.30% paid on Treasury Notes.(325) Now we know where the I.R.S. 1040 Form came from, to pay the interest on the 1040 Bond debt, which is still being "paid?" By 1864, these bond values dropped to 39 cents on the dollar, meaning, banks had to loan to the U.S. government at higher interest, namely 2% more. Pity.
After Lincoln's War, the South was punished by the U. S. government. It raped eleven states and 8,000,000 Good and Lawful Christian people still under military government and martial law.
Some assert that there is no corporate "U.S. government," but, the District of Columbia can also be called the United States D.C. was incorporated in 1871(326):
The government of the District of Columbia provided by the Act of February 21, 1871, is not a mere municipality in its restricted sense, but is to be placed upon the same footing with that of any of the States or Territories within the limits of the law from which it derives its existence.(327)
Further, one can find specific evidence for this in the electronic search of the Titles and Codes.
But, why did the Federal power need a corporation?
First, martial law governments are fictions created to manage civil affairs. Second, the doctrine of equal standing in law makes it clear that only parties of equal standing can communicate in law. The Maxim is: Disparata non debent jungi -- Dissimilar things ought not to be joined.(328) Third, since such governments are fictions, they can only deal with fictions and are thus, prohibited from re-creating lawful civil authority.
Now, if a fiction goes into debt, it can only pledge fictions as an asset for that debt. By incorporating the United States government, it protected the real, substantive assets, of the de jure Federal government.
Abolition of the debt and the restoration of the de jure government can only be done by a Good and Lawful Christian people, because only Christian people have the sole and exclusive right, power, and authority to alter, abolish, or create a Lawful civil government.(329) They are the only ones who have access to real Law, God's Law. Since corporations are fictions, they are the logical alternative by which a new, competing form of government could carry on its business. Notice however, that One, the substance of the government is now gone, and it retains only the outward form and appearance; and, Two, the flow of law from the people is now directed at the people by the corporation. Further, corporations are the ideal way to carry on commerce, an unlawful activity, that also provides limited liability from prosecution for its commercial acts.
At any rate, martial law and its continued existence, justified by the Lieber Code, continued in effect without a public proclamation. More evidence for this is seen in Andrew Johnson's veto message of the Reconstruction Acts, which, seven years later, makes it clear that the nation was still under martial law:
War was continued in those States until the President's [Johnson] proclamation of August 20, 1865, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater -- 'non flagrante bello sed nondum cessante bello.'(330)
As the 43rd Congress declared, a non-flagrant war, a.k.a. "Fabian warfare,"(331) continued after the flagrant war ended:
The existence of what is called 'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains [*overthrowing the treacherous policy of the purported amendments] -- the animus revertendi -- so long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed [*the bondholder or his debtor] may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the danger is past, and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances.(332)
If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.
It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Congress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government,' that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them. (333)
Robert Edward Lee's comment on the government created by the Radical Republicans is worth noting.
Governor [*Rosecrans], if I had foreseen the use those people [*the Republicans] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.(334)
Mr. Lee knew, after the open hostile war, that the paper and propaganda 'war' was still going on. He knew because he was a Good and Lawful Christian Man, possessing that Godly gift of discernment.
Yet, the above is merely suggestive of a much more extensive rape of the South
To think of the national banking system as a purely fiscal measure innocent of politics and free from exploitation would indeed be a naive assumption. Investigation shows that it "developed into something that was neither national nor a banking system. Instead it was a loose organization of currency factories designed to…[*serve] commercial communities and confined…almost entirely to the New England and Middle Atlantic States."(335) One of the chief injustices of the system as actually administered was the favoritism shown after the war to the eastern states which received the lion's share of the $300,000,000 of banknote circulation assigned by law as the maximum for the whole country. As explained by George LaVerne Anderson, each state in the New England and Middle Atlantic regions obtained an amount of banknotes in excess of its quota, while not a state in the South received an amount equal to its quota. "Massachusetts [*writes Anderson] received the circulation which would have been necessary to raise Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Arkansas to their legal quotas.…The little state of Connecticut had more national bank circulation than Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee…Massachusetts had more than the rest of the Union exclusive of the New England and Middle Atlantic states."
Interesting comparison [*he continued] can be made between comparatively small New England towns and Southern states. Thus, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, had more national bank circulation than North and South Carolina, Mississippi and Arkansas; Waterville, Maine, had nearly as much as Alabama; New Haven, Connecticut, had more than any single Southern state. Bridgeport in the same state had more than North and South Carolina, Alabama and Texas. Similar comparisons could be made, but enough have been suggested to show the True nature of the question.
The per capita figures are just as astonishing. Rhode Island had $77.16 for each inhabitant, Arkansas had 13 cents.
If it be said in answer to these facts that distributing circulation according to population is absurd…it should be kept in mind that not a single Southern state had obtained, by October, 1869, its legal share of the $150,000,000 which was to have been apportioned according to existing banking capital, wealth and resources.(336)
The state of Georgia received less than 10% of its allotment and Louisiana less than 14%. This policy continued well into the 20th century. If anyone needs to ask why the South was 'historically' so poor, he need look no further than these numbers!
…Though it had some merit [*bank note circulation], it created an inelastic currency, tended toward the concentration of bank resources in New York, opened the way for serious abuse in the speculative exploitation of bank funds, and contributed to the sharp financial flurry of 1907. Proving inadequate as a nationwide control of currency and banking, it was tardily superseded by an improved plan in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.(337)
Presented on the following pages are a compilation of descriptive and telling historical facts resulting from A. Lincoln's War, beginning first with Rep. Dan Vorhees in The House of Representatives in 1872:
From turret to foundation you tore down the government of eleven States. You left not one stone upon another. You not only destroyed their local laws, but you trampled upon their ruins. You called Conventions to frame new Constitutions for these old States, but you said who could elect them. You fixed the quality and the color of the voters. You purged the ballot box of intelligence and virtue, and in their stead you placed the most ignorant and unqualified race in the world to rule over these people.
Let the great State of Georgia speak first. You permitted her to stand up and start in her new career, but seeing some flaw in your handiwork, you again destroyed and again reconstructed her State government. You clung to her throat; you battered her features out of shape and recognition, determined that your party should have undisputed possession and enjoyment of her offices, her honors, and her substance. Then bound hand and foot you handed her over to the rapacity of her robbers. Her prolific and unbounded resources inflamed their desires.
In 1861 Georgia was free from debt. Taxes were light as air. The burdens of government were easy upon her citizens. Her credit stood high, and when the war closed she was still free from indebtedness. After six years of Republican rule you present her, to the horror of the world, loaded with a debt of $50,000,000, and the crime against Georgia is the crime this same party has committed against the other Southern States. Your work of destruction was more fatal than a scourge of pestilence, war or famine.
Rufus B. Bullock, Governor of Georgia, dictated the legislation of Congress, and the great commonwealth of Georgia was cursed by his presence. With such a Governor, and such a legislature in perfect harmony, morally and politically, their career will go down to posterity without a rival for infamous administrations of the world. That Governor served three years and then absconded with all of the gains. The Legislature of two years spent $100,000 more than had been spent during any eight previous years. They even put the children's money, laid aside for education of white and black, into their own pockets.
There is no form of ruin to which she has not fallen a prey, no curse with which she has not been baptized, no cup of humiliation and suffering her people have not drained to the dregs. There she stands the result of your handiwork, bankrupt in money, ruined in credit, her bonds hawked about the streets at ten cents on the dollar, her prosperity blighted at home and abroad, without peace, happiness, or hope. There she stands with her skeleton frame admonishing all the world of the loathsome consequences of a government fashioned in hate and fanaticism, and founded upon the ignorant and vicious classes of manhood. Her sins may have been many and deep, and the color of scarlet, yet they will become as white as snow in comparison with those you have committed against her in the hour of her helplessness and distress.
I challenge the darkest annals of the human race for a parallel to the robberies which have been perpetrated on these eleven American States. Had you sown the seeds of kindness and good will they would long ere this have blossomed into prosperity and peace. Had you sown seeds of honor, you would have reaped a golden harvest of contentment and obedience. Had you extended your charities and your justice to a distressed people you would have awakened a grateful affection in return. But as you planted in hate and nurtured in corruption so have been the fruits which you have gathered."(338)
Differences of opinion concerning the future status of the seceded states led to an open break between the President, Andrew Johnson, and the Radical Congressional leaders. The President's policy, which followed closely Lincoln's design to affect the reconstruction quickly and painlessly was sharply challenged by the vindictives and steps were quickly undertaken to divest the Chief Executive of all authority in this regard. After asserting that no State would be readmitted until Congress should have declared each State entitled to such consideration,(339) the Radicals sought additional means to enhance their position. Seizing the opportunity afforded in their appropriating authority, on March 2, 1867 they attached to the Army Appropriation Act a provision aimed at curtailing the President's constitutional authority. Specifically, it provided that all orders issued to the Army would be made through the General in Chief, whose headquarters would be placed in Washington, and who could not be removed nor assigned to duty outside the Capital without the consent of the Senate.(340) Because it was an appropriation bill, Johnson could not withhold his signature but he did call attention to the fact that Congress overstepped their legal prerogatives by depriving the President of his constitutional functions as Commander in Chief of the Army.(341)
Under questionable interpretation of the law, the reconstruction of the South was conducted as a means of military occupation over a conquered province; and by this means, the Radicals perpetuated themselves in office for the next fourteen years. In three successive Acts, Congress abolished all legal government in the South and divided it into five military districts each under a military governor(342) until such time as Congress was satisfied that all conditions for readmission were complied with. Thus the Congressional policy of military occupation of the South made the Army an instrument for carrying out the law as politicians saw it. Thus did the Army serve its masters, the sovereign People.(343)
No body, either corporate or incorporate, private or public, can do any legal act under the restraints of duress.
The nominal Congress was for five years under the most carefully ordered duress, the most exacting espionage, the most complete terror ever exercised over any deliberative body invested with law-making powers.
From the opening of the war until the conclusion of peace, Congress was surrounded with soldiers -- menaced by an army, whose bristling bayonets gleaming in the sunlight, flashed upon the windows of the Capitol, and fell upon the eyes of this terrified body. The legislation was dictated by the commander-in-chief of the army, who acted in advance of all legislation.
The bold men of the opposition were in perpetual danger of assassination or death by the slow torture of the prison. Mobs were organized in every part of the country, and members of Congress were in danger for every word spoken in conflict with the policy of the President, and were imprisoned at his will.
Mr. [*Clement] Vallandigham [*Ohio Congressman] was arrested, imprisoned and banished by a mob of military idiots under the usurpation of a military commission. This was inflicted as a punishment for his bold, active, defense of the people whilst in Congress; as well as to intimidate others by the example of his punishment.
Mr. Wall, of New Jersey, was imprisoned and brutally treated because he was a prominent candidate for United States Senator, a gentleman of great independence and eminent ability.
Henry May, of Maryland, a member of Congress, was imprisoned whilst attending the funeral of an illustrious brother, who had died of disease contracted in the Mexican War, because he was the luminous mind of the Maryland College in Congress, and the leading spirit of her freemen who stood with undeviating devotion to the government.
Willis J. Allen, a Congressman of Illinois, was kept in prison with felons, under no charge whatever, which an iniquitous Congress could make a pretext for his expulsion from that body, because an example was required to trample down the people of Southern Illinois, and form their acquiescence in the general usurpation.
In its legislation, the President neither consulted or awaited the action of Congress, but anticipated it; and accepted the ratification of their own debasement with avidity.(344)
Analyzing the President's war power further, we find that besides the executive power, which during the war expanded enormously, there was a considerable amount of 'presidential legislation' (for in many cases it virtually amounted to that), and there were also notable instances of presidential justice.
The subject of presidential legislation is difficult, because the President's power of issuing regulations and executive orders shades almost imperceptibly into the exercise of the legislative function itself. President Lincoln issued 'regulations' for the enforcement of the Militia Act of 1862 which established conscription for the first time during the war. The act itself did not specifically authorize conscription at all, and so far as the draft was used in 1862 (in Indiana, Wisconsin, and other States) it rested upon these executive regulations. What is more, these regulations permitted State governors to devise for their States compulsory systems of raising the militia if they preferred not to follow the plan included within the President's regulations. In another chapter this subject will be more fully discussed [Chapter XI], but for our present purpose it is important to notice that the President was accused of usurping the legislative power in promulgating such far-reaching regulations.
Other instances of presidential action resembling legislation were not lacking. On May 3, 1861, the President enlarged the army of the United States by his call for volunteers [None has ever claimed that the President could, by proclamation, increase the regular army.(345)], an act which is to be carefully distinguished from the earlier call, on April 15, for 75,000 militia. The May call was of the sort that usually follows congressional action authorizing the increase of the army. It was made in anticipation of congressional authority, which was later given in the short special session of '61. A still more striking instance, which was widely regarded as executive assumption of legislative power, was the proclamation of December 8, 1863, in which Lincoln promulgated a comprehensive plan of reconstruction, outlining in detail the method by which the States of the South were to be restored to the Union.(346)
One more example of presidential legislation may be noted. In issuing a 'general order' embodying the rules of war applicable to armies in the field, Lincoln was promulgating a code of laws. It could be argued with good reason that in so doing he was performing that function which the Constitution gives to Congress of making 'rules for the government of the land and naval forces.'(347) In England such rules are established by Parliament, as in the Mutiny Act, while at various times our own Congress has put forth a military code in its 'Articles of War.' Though the code was derived from existing international law, its promulgation was none the less a truly legislative function.
Though the President did not hesitate to act if necessary without congressional authorization, it is also to be noted that, in part, the President's war power is derived from Congress. This fact is well expressed by Mr. Hughes in the following words:
"It is…to be observed that the power exercised by the President in time of war is greatly augmented outside of his functions as Commander-in-Chief through legislation of Congress increasing his administrative authority. War demands…efficient organization, and Congress in the nature of things cannot prescribe many important details as it legislates for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of war. Never is adaptation of legislation to practical ends so urgently required, and hence Congress naturally in very large measure confers upon the President the authority to ascertain and determine various states of fact to which legislative measures are addressed…We thus…find…a vast increase of administrative authority through legislative action springing from the necessities of war."(348)
The extent of that dominance [*military] of the President appears more fully when some of the half-forgotten procedures of the period are recalled. Such was the expansion of the executive power under Lincoln that, in addition to other wartime increases of authority within the executive branch, there were considerable instances when the legislative function was controlled by the President, and also when judicial duties were taken over by the executive.
In important respects the President got along without Congress, though this was perhaps overbalanced by the extent to which Congress thwarted him on the issue of reconstruction. So far did he take over legislative functions that one could speak of some of his acts as 'presidential legislation.'(349) It is obvious that the two emancipation proclamations trenched upon the legislative power. As another example, Lincoln issued a set of 'regulations' for the enforcement of the Militia Act of July 17, 1862. Actual conscription was not specifically provided for in the law as passed by Congress, yet conscription was used to raise troops. It was done simply under executive regulations. The matter went even further, for under these regulations governors of the states [*a trespass into the venue of the states] could set up their own systems of compulsory service as an alternative to following the President's orders. There has been considerable discussion of Lincoln's exercise of legislative power when, beginning in December 1863, he promulgated and later developed his presidential system of reconstruction.
The jurisdiction of United States courts-martial is limited to those serving in the armed forces, certain categories of reserve and retired personnel, prisoners of war (subject to applicable provisions of treaties, executive agreements, and international law), and persons employed by or accompanying the armed forces beyond the continental limits of the United States of America.(350) Nevertheless, where martial law has been declared and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspended, any civilian may find himself amenable to trial not before the regular civil courts, but by the order of or under regulations promulgated by a military commander, by one of a miscellany of ad hoc tribunals composed of officers of the armed services and usually designated as provost courts, military commissions, or military boards. The judgments of such military courts are not more subject to review in the regular civil courts than are those of courts-martial. Although it is highly exceptional for court-martial cases to raise serious constitutional issues touching the authority of the President, it is customary for cases involving the trial of civilians by military tribunals to bristle with such issues. The limited experience of Americans in such matters to date, however, affords no basis for optimism about the ability of the civil courts to intervene in or frustrate the administration of military justice. When direct conflict between the courts and the military arises -- and this has rarely happened in the past -- the judges must bow to superior force. It is the President and not the Supreme Court who is the Commander in Chief and in those rare instances in which he has yielded to the exigencies of the demands of the public safety, due process of law and military expediency exhibited a notable tendency to coalesce.
The action of the President in suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, and his approval of suspension in Hawaii during World War II, led to direct challenges in the courts to the authority of the Commander in Chief to order the trial of civilians by military courts when the regular courts might have exercised jurisdiction. It is true that the Supreme Court has held both the Civil War and Hawaiian episodes to have been unconstitutional; but in each instance a successful challenge was possible only retroactively after the cessation of hostilities (not the war), which could under any circumstances have justified the judgment of the military. These matters have been so well and so recently discussed by Professor (Clinton) Rossiter that little needs to be added here.(351)
These examples are simply evidence that the Supreme Court is a captive court whose rulings are routinely ignored by the Commander-in-Chief when it suits his purposes to ignore them:
The first of a succession of orders and proclamations by Lincoln suspending the writ covered originally only the critical main line of communications between Washington and Philadelphia and ran almost entirely through territory in which sympathy for the Confederacy was very high, but ultimately embraced all of the United States [of America]. It was challenged almost immediately and at the highest possible level of executive-judicial conflict in the celebrated case of Merryman. Here President Lincoln personally directed the commanding officer of Fort McHenry in Baltimore to refuse to deliver up the body of the petitioner to Chief Justice Taney, who retaliated by writing an opinion in which he explicitly ruled that 'the president has exercised a power which he does not possess under the constitution.'(352) The subsequent adverse decisions of several ... made abundantly clear in the Merryman case, that the civil courts have no power to interfere with or control the actions of the Commander in Chief if he wills otherwise.(353)
Throughout [Reconstruction], as James E. Sefton has noted, 'the Army was by far the most important instrument of federal authority in the South…and it was the only enforcer of national reconstruction policy, regardless of whether that policy was under executive leadership or congressional.'(354) It was this role as the 'enforcer of national reconstruction policy' that shaped the Army's rules of engagement, so to speak, in handling civil disorders. And they were likely to vary with the locality, depending on what the national Reconstruction was at the moment, whether Congress or the president was directing it, and the inclinations of individual commanders. Suffice it to say here that, even after the re-admission of the ex-Confederate states, the old pre-Civil War rules did not apply.
... The instruments of military control during the war -- marital law, arbitrary arrests, and trial by military commission -- continued to be features of the first two periods of the Reconstruction Era, and to them could be added at times using provost courts to try minor civil offenses, overruling civil courts decisions, and removing civil officials. (355) After the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, military commanders acted as civil governors of their 'provinces' for a time.…
Before the Civil War, in both North and South, militia under state control, not federal troops, were almost always used to control local disorders where military intervention was necessary.(356).…Federal military force was the sole expedient to be relied upon either to protect the freedmen in their rights [granted by Exec.Proc.September 22, 1862] or to deal with disturbances when the civil authorities were either unable or unwilling to do so.(357)
The War ... injured education in the South but improved it in the North. The War ... and the period of Reconstruction which followed were disastrous to education in the South. Many schools were forced to shut down, funds were lost, appropriations dwindled, and the emancipation of Negro slaves placed new burdens upon southern school systems which they were ill prepared to assume. In the North, on the contrary, the war stimulated educational progress. The greatest advance was in the field of higher education. Congress, in 1862, granted to every state in the Union 30,000 acres of public land for each representative in Congress, the land to be used as an endowment for colleges teaching agriculture and mechanical arts.(358) Under the terms of this act some 13 million acres of land were eventually given to the states for the establishment and maintenance of agricultural colleges. These grants were available to southern states after their re-admission into the Union.(359)
Lastly, the Court merged its Rules of Procedure and eliminated the only Federal way to check the power of the President:
In 1934, Congress passed an enactment(360) which authorized the United States Supreme Court to unite the rules governing suits in equity and actions at law in the federal courts; and pursuant to this statute 'the Court has united the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both.'(361) These regulations, entitled the 'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(363) became effective September 16, 1938, and superseded all prior laws in conflict with them. 'These rules govern the procedure in the district courts of the United States [singular] in all suits of civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity.(364) Rule 2 provides that, 'There shall be one form of action to be known as 'civil action.''(365)
The following warning from Judge Henry Clay Dean coincides with Judge Field's and capsulizes the situation today with regard to the funding system, standing armies and the tax-gatherers instituted by A. Lincoln in his war:
Experience has given to history this one truth, ...that funded debts and standing armies will enslave any people. These evils are inseparable. A standing army will necessitate a funding debt, to support it; and a funding debt will require a standing army to collect it.(366)
If Lincoln set aside the Constitution, Christian common Law, and the Law of traditionally vested rights in God, what was put in its place? In the history of law there are but two distinct kinds; God's Law; and man's law, as seen in the Roman civil code of Justinian.
The original Constitution (seriously flawed) was an instrument of common law procedure whose major influence was the Law of God through canon law and the customs and usages of the people in England and America. The genius of the Puritan mind, was the highpoint in American law. From there it started to degrade until Lincoln's War. Pound describes this very succinctly:
…the age of Coke was the age of the Puritan in England and the period that ends with our Civil War was the age of the Puritan in America.
...we may note that the typical exposition of the extreme individualist view as to the rights of adjoining owners in disposing of surface water came from Massachusetts. Much of this has been done away with under modern Roman influence.(367)
The three branches of the power with checks and balances reflected the colonial governments that existed before the Constitution, which were in turn, based on the dominant form of church government in a colony.
Thus, Congregational churches found expression in civil governments dominated by a legislature. Presbyterian churches dominated by the Massachusetts Puritans, fostered a civil government as a kind of judiciary, while Anglicans in Virginia, and Episcopalian forms favored the executive branch.
When Lincoln brushed all this aside, he replaced it with the only law available as a codified whole, i.e., the Code of Justinian I, a Byzantine emperor who reigned during the years 527-565. Some say Lincoln imported the civil law of Rome. But, any idea of Roman civil law is bogus because Rome was always under the god Mars, i.e., martial law, and was always a military state in which Roman Legions were used to expand and maintain control of Rome's insatiable commercial appetite. The vast number of parallels between the old Roman codes and modern codes are many, of which, the doctrine of Novation is typical. Novation, from the Latin, novatio is a legal idea that did not exist in American law before Lincoln's War,
Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation.(368)
The utility of Novation in governments funded by debt is an extended process used to create a fictional persona that stands as surety for the debt. Thus, if a baby is born in a commercial hospital, its footprint is placed on a Birth Certificate, recorded at a County Recorder,(369) sent to the State Secretary of State, exported to the Federal Secretary of State, Dept. of Commerce, and Bureau of Census. The conversion of one's life, labor, and property to a U. S. government asset is in place but a baby is imperfectly bound until, as an adult, it voluntarily seeks a Federal benefit, etc., that makes him surety for the purported debt. Rei interventus can intervene though this process has never been properly challenged in court:
Rei Interventus. When the party is imperfectly bound in an obligation, he may, in general, annul such imperfect obligation; but when he has permitted the opposite party to act as if his obligation or agreement were complete, such things have intervened as to deprive him of the right to rescind such obligations: these circumstances are the rei interventus.(370)
Thus, if one acts in rei interventus, before seeking a benefit, etc., he annuls his implied suretyship. If he accepts the benefit, rei interventus is set aside. If one has no Birth Certificate, seeks no benefit from the D.M.V. or the S.S.A.; there is no novation or need for rei interventus. Novation converts one's life, labor, and property, to assets of the United States, a Corporation. It creates a new persona,(371) i.e., a fiction, for which the God created man of substance, is surety. One's labor and property are the collateral for debts of the United States. The fiction is what the bondholder requires in order to loan credit, for the debt is based on fiction. Fiction for fiction!!!
Next, the persona, as a fiction, cannot think, speak, see, hear, or write, and thus must have an advocatus, an attorney-at-law, also a fiction, to speak for the persona.
The law of fictions is the lex mercatoria, the law of merchants and commerce is based on Roman law where the god of commerce, Mercury, presides. Mercury is also the god of traders and thieves. (372)
Thus, Roman law served all the needs of those who opposed the constraints on commerce found in Christian common Law. But, since commercial law is not Law, being contrary to the Law of God, the power of the military is used to enforce all commercial edicts.
If this legal system appears tangled and confused, this is but the logical consequence of Roman law. Every President and Congress after Lincoln made it worse. In the history of American Presidents there is no record that any tried to campaign for a restoration. Sinful man will never go back so long as the Christian sleeps. If anyone learned well, however, the lessons that Lincoln taught, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A Newer, Even a Better Deal?
One of the problems with President Hoover was his attitude toward banks. In the early 1930's, U.S. banks were giving customers gold certificates (paper) in exchange for gold coin at $22.00 an ounce and re-selling the coin to European bankers at $34.00 an ounce, making a very tidy profit on each coin. People discovered this and started demanding coin back, but the banks, by this time, did not have sufficient reserves to meet demand. President Hoover declined to take Federal action and bail the banks out of trouble.
Enter F.D.R. who labels those who want coin as "hoarders." He declares a bank holiday, raises the gold price to $34.00, and banks re-open. Bankers are happy, but Roosevelt extracts a price, that they can only do business -- only on the President's Signature !!! Thus, all banks are controlled by one man, the President, who can close them in any so-called 'national emergency.' The Federal Reserve is reduced to a lackey of the President and bean-counters for the bondholders.
F.D.R. extended 'emergency powers' by E.O.s that were always afterwards made into law by Congress. His policy was identical to Lincoln's, in that he acted before he had the power to do so. Roosevelt's policy, however, resulted in the largest increase in Federal revenues in history.
He did it using very simple methods. By declaring that; all persons living in the States were citizens of the United States(373) (novators), to be enemies of the United States.(374) Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, all persons doing business with an enemy of the United States, were required to be licensed, controlled, and regulated. This also meant that military protection (a benefit) was now extended to every American whether they wanted it or not. This is the cornerstone of all modern taxation, licensure, permitting, regulation, and commerce.
Thus, from 1932-44 the volume of Acts passed by Congress and State legislatures exploded. States did nothing to stop Roosevelt because they all benefited from massive increases in state and local taxes. This is the basis for the Department of Motor Vehicles, for example, in which the Federal government receives 61% of all revenues.(375) It is the foundation of all State taxes, licensure, permits, special fees, and regulation, etc.
But, just to make sure there would be no court challenge to his acts, and like Lincoln, Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court with his men to secure the decisions that he wanted. And, all of a sudden, Executive Orders of the President now have equal standing with the Acts of Congress.
And, all this took place under the developing doctrine of "emergency powers."
Necessity gave birth to emergency powers that includes all forms of; martial law, martial rule (a more benign form of martial law), qualified martial rule, national emergencies, and state or regional emergencies. The only other law that is invoked is International and Municipal.
It frustrates, confuses, and angers the people that live under emergency powers. Eventually, the people rise up to overthrow such powers, either by concerted refusal to submit, or by a bloodbath as in France in 1790, which did not end until the mid-1800's. Further, emergency governments only operate as a democracy, not a republic. This is done to maintain the fiction that a lawful civil authority still exists. Democracies only stay in power as long as they can maintain the perception in a majority of the people, that the government is doing its job.
By definition, martial law and emergency powers exist in the second place because, lawful civil authority, process, and procedure have ceased to exist in the first place:
Martial law is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather that allowed as law. The necessity of order and discipline in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance, ... it ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when king's courts are open for all persons to receive justice according to the laws of the land.(376)
Martial law is neither more nor less than the will of the general who commands the army. It overrides and suppresses all existing civil laws, civil officers, and civil authorities, by the arbitrary exercise of military power;(377)
How then, does martial law affect the administration of law and the courts today?
The law of the territory ... whenever the local civil authority is superseded ...by the military authority of the occupying power... includes local criminal law as adopted or modified by competent authority, and the proclamations, ordinances, regulations, or orders promulgated by competent authority of the occupying power.(378)
Today, the people do not remember what it was like, once upon a time in the west.
A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. ... And ... actions taken by the Government in time of great crises have - from, ... the Civil War - in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.(379)
National emergencies are:
A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war.(380)
We are told that America is the longest lasting Constitutional government in the history of the world. In fact, the Constitutional republic lasted from 1787 to 1861, less than seventy-five years!!!
F.D.R. developed emergency powers doctrine more than any other President, usually while Congress was in recess. Thus, on March 6, 1933,(381) under the guise of a national banking crisis, which he, as President had fully exploited, all American banks came under the control of the President to the extent that:
... present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the President.(382)
In less than two years, all States passed similar statutes. Because of 12 U.S.C.A, Sec. 95 every President re-affirms the state of national emergency, annually.(383)
The answer to the question "are we living under a military government, etc.," must be an emphatic, Yes!!! Where is Congress in the scheme of things? What sort of power does it have?
Earlier, we pointed out that Congress is not a body that sits according to Law or positive Act, but by resolution.(384) `Resolution' is:
... a term ... employed for the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or of censure, etc.. Such is not law, but merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion.(385) [And] The chief distinction between a 'resolution' and a 'law' is that the former is used whenever the legislative body passing its wishes merely to express an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary effect on such particular thing, while by a "law" it is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general.(386)
This is also one of the reasons why Congress adjourns every Session sine die.
During the Korean War, there was much publicity over the fact that Congress never declared war and charges were flung back and forth that the War was illegal. The same took place in Viet Nam and elsewhere.
This, in fact, is nothing less than sheer hype because the President, as Commander-in-Chief with emergency powers, never needs the approval of Congress to engage in 'peace actions,' or war. The truth is, Congress only makes "public policy" as trustees in bankruptcy.
Such Acts are officially called, "Public Law" but, they have no real substance because "Public Law" is really "Private Law," because it applies only to those who feed at the Federal trough. It is:
The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community.(387)
For those who moan, roll their eyes and beat their breasts each time Christians speak of Gods' Law, and claim that any Law based on Gods' Law "imposes morality" on the people, consider that:
The term 'policy,' as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be 'against public policy,' when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality.(388)
In other words, legality and morality have nothing to do with public policy that protects the interests of the State, not the people. Whether it's legal or moral doesn't matter. If this is not a statement of immorality then the English language has no meaning. Further:
Public policy is a variable quantity; it must and does vary, with the habits, capacities, and opportunities of the public.(389)
Apparently, "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets."
The real truth of the matter is very clearly given by R. J. Rushdoony:
Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.
Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society.
Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system. ...In Western culture, law has steadily moved away from God to the people (or the state) as its source, although the historic power and vitality of the West has been in Biblical faith and law.
Third, in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism.
Fourth, no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law system which codifies the morality of its religion.
Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance.(390)
Thus, Rome's Imperial power is in full control and its continued existence is justified by the doctrines of necessity, the bankruptcy of the United States, and the acquiescence of Christian people. And, all this took place under the guise of 'enforcing the law under a Constitution' -- that, in substance, does not exist.
One may scream to high heaven about this, and the courts, IRS, BATF, FBI, and rail at countless agencies, bureaus, departments, and other tentacles of Imperial government with charges of fraud, theft, and a host of other crimes but imperial governments only do what the people want. Imperial governments obey their law, but we do not obey the Law we claim, the Law of God. We honor it with our lips and not with our hearts or actions. We violate God's Commandments -- daily. We do things we ought not, against God's Law, while demanding the benefits, privileges, and opportunities of ungodly governments.
"…Thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous."(391) It is We who accept the benefits, privileges, and opportunities of the new Roman Imperial military system and its commercial legalisms. If we enter Imperial courts they cannot judge us by Our Law, but by their law. They have no option. Thus, the Lord has said: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?(392) Is this not a command to set up our own courts under Godly jural societies???
The Laws of War, International and Municipal Law, and Emergency Powers, are not real law and are arbitrary, capricious, and self-contradictory. The Supreme Court has ruled(393) that there is no stare decisis, i.e., no precedent binds any court, because they have no law standard of absolute right and wrong by which to measure a ruling. Why would any Christian want to do battle in a court where he is judged by man's law, especially when he doesn't have to. Such courts, as the Rod of God, will compel us to live under man's law only so long as Christians acquiesce - voluntarily. This may need some explanation.
First, the Roman Imperial Federal, State, County, and City powers have set up their system to distribute benefits and collect payments thereon, only for those who have voluntarily renounced the Law of God and have chosen the law of man.
Second, we know this because even in the current law of man there is no provision to compel anyone to accept a benefit, privilege, immunity, or commercial opportunity, of any kind. There are, in fact, countless court decisions which state precisely this point.
Thus, one must voluntarily step into the Roman commercial arena in order for it to make a demand on us. But, one cannot accept the benefits of the Roman system and still retain standing as a Christian. Imperial courts will make certain that We strictly adhere to one law or the other. We must, therefore, either live according to God's Law, the Law of substance, liberty, peace and constituted Christian government, or We will be compelled to live by the law of a fictitious persona, without substance or liberty, and they will govern every move and punish all deviation from an arbitrary and capricious system that even they don't understand. And, they will seize Our lives, liberties and property so long as Christians will not make it crystal clear as to who they worship and act consistently with that premise.
Some believe the imperial system can be done away with, and replaced by another system without the blessings of Christianity. But, the history of the world shouts with one voice, that such is folly. Men will either be ruled by God or by Imperial Tyrants.
Thus, if We claim to be at common Law, in a Christian venue, yet in fact live under the arbitrary, Non-Christian system, and daily engage in commerce forbidden by Scripture, We are punished for Our lies, contradictions, deceit and fraud that are not permitted under God's Law. If those that claim the benefits of God's Law and His Providence and still worship at Mercury's altar (in commerce), they deserve what they get. Defendants who sit on a fence deserve to be split asunder. Remember, God is long-suffering and takes His own time to punish evil, but man wants punishment now and he has created the courts to do just that.
But "He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretyship is sure.(394) Everyone wants to know how it's all going to turn out. But, God has said: "Therefore take no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."(395) We know that victory is assured to God's People. We know that when Israel was returned to the land after Babylon, Ezra re-discovered the Law and his first task was to re-form a lawful civil power, which is the point of Christian Jural Societies. The Lord says: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."(396)
Note that The Lord does not call for imperial powers to repent, but for His people called by His name. It is We, the slaves of Imperial Rome who are in sin, just as Israel did under Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, and Caesar.
And if We will love the Lord Our God with all Our hearts, and with all Our Souls, and with all Our Minds, We will find the Crown of Victory at the end of the race, and Our Posterity will say of Us:
"And they that shall be of thee, shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations: and thou shalt be called, the Repairer of the breach; the Restorer of the paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:12
Since military law only recognizes international, municipal, and the laws of war, states administer municipal courts to punish 'infractions' of Motor Vehicle Codes. "Infraction," along with "contempt of court" and "appeal" are military terms. This is why such terms are not defined in State Codes.(397)
Such courts fly the Commander-in-Chief's flag, (gold fringed) and are an extension of his power, for whom such courts collect war reparations in fines. All the inferior courts act as military courts in summary court martial proceedings against civilians,(398) and only try matters of fact. Judges make and declare law on a case by case basis, without the control of precedent or constitutional restriction. The law is thus, that which comes out of the judges mouth.(399) Cases are resolved for revenue purposes, by necessity, but not by law.(400)
Thus, do not be deceived if a judge lets one present a constitutional argument. Often bored, they will hear considerable argument and even stare decisis. But, this in no way affects a judges ruling.
Under emergency powers, final authority is always the Commander-in-Chief, i.e., the President in his military capacity. The Commander-in-Chief rules by Executive Order and though Lincoln issued very few E.O.s, subsequent President's issued no less than 30,000 in a 70 year period. The E.O. snow storms under F.D.R. and subsequent President's, in fifty years, exceeds 17,000. This is in spite of the fact that E.O.'s are unconstitutioinal.
President also has authority to issue executive orders and his subordinates have authority to promulgate rules for the regulation of the internal affairs and procedure of the executive department and its subdivisions; but the rules and orders promulgated by the President or by the heads of departments under his authority relating to the conduct of public business or to the civil service or other administrative matters 'have not the force of law and are not statutes in any sense; ...courts of equity have no jurisdiction or authority to enforce them.(401)
But, once published in the Federal Register,
Executive orders have the force and effect of law and in their construction and interpretation the accepted canons of statutory construction are to be applied.(402)
Many believe in going into court and "beatin' 'em at their own game." But this is folly, because;
...a court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment ... except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance.(403)
The process of all current courts is perfected by personal appearance, special appearances, and any other form of appearance, except when one appears by lawful process. All appearances in such courts are voluntary, but one must respond. Thus, if one appears, one loses, because one has waived his right to argue against the service of defective process,(404) and has one is thus, denied the protections of Christian common law.
Law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will render judgment against him for default of appearance.(405)
The only process which effectively challenges a court's law or jurisdiciton is lawful process, and this means that one must either demur or abate.(406) If you demur you admit all the charges and submit yourself to the court for judgment.If one abates properly, there is no case on which a court can act because an abatement served on a defendant, exposes the defects in plaintiff's process. If one does anything else,
... he is held to submit himself to the authority of the court, and all defects of service of process, are cured.(407)
By necessity, field officers (judges, highway patrolmen, sheriffs, etc.) exercise powers of life and death to maintain authority given them by international and municipal law and the laws of war. And, constitutional and common law process are too restrictive for Federal, State, County, and City courts, because they hamper the collection of the war debt.
Military courts use the "benefit of discussion"(408) to acquire jurisdiction as soon as the "accused" asks or answers any question posed by a judge or the prosecuting officer.
Arrest Warrants with a judge's signature in black ink and proper affidavits with true court seals, are instruments of lawful process and thus, are not used in martial law courts. Any argument, therefore, by a defendant on these grounds alone, will be ignored.
Martial law courts manipulate Rules of English grammar to protect themselves from fraud charges. Thus, states write their name as The State of California, instead of California State, or, California Republic, or print it in all caps as in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, instead of proper upper and lower case letters, and use abbreviations such as CA, TX, MT, KS, NY, NJ, and so on, ad nauseum, all of which are misnomers and no names at all International law require all parties to a case, to appear in some name other than their own lawfully spelled Christian appellation.
The real irony is, the United States and the States, created martial law courts to expand revenue collection. But by doing so, they became vulnerable -- to Lawful processes. There is little they can do about it without violating international law. This is why the U.S. will not pull out of the United Nations, because the U.N. is the basis of the United States' authority under International Law.
A word of caution. One who hires an attorney-at-law cannot bring lawful process against emergency powers courts because all Bar attorneys are agents of the court and can only use processes allowed by the court that licenses the attorney to practice.(409) One must not hire an attorney(410) to appear in martial law courts because, doing so, automatically grants jurisdiction:
A plea to the jurisdiction of the person, must be pleaded in person, and not by attorney. If pleaded by attorney, it is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court."(411) [And] "A plea to the jurisdiction of the person by a corporation must be by attorney."(412)
Without Lawful process, all constitutions are dead letters, manipulated at the de facto governments whim, because constitutions depend on Lawful process for their proper implimentation.
If a Constitution or precedent gets in the way, it is ignored because they are merely optional.(413) This is why Supreme Court cases(414) in which there is no right, constitutional or otherwise, are heard.. A 'social agenda' is impossible without Doctrines of Necessity and international or treaty law to justify imposition of martial law.
Remember, there was no Federal Social Security before passage of the International Labor Organizations Treaty (1935). It mandated a social consciousness and enfranchisement of the masses. It justified entitlement programs created in the New Deal that the people are burdened with, today. The hidden fact is, constitutional rights are now deemed to be 'privileges' that can be given or taken away, by necessity.
The [Supreme] Court remarked it had its origin in the lawful exercise of a belligerent right over a conquered territory. It had been instituted during the war by the command of the President ... It was the government when the territory was ceded as a conquest, and it did not cease ... as a necessary consequence of restoration of peace. The President might have dissolved it by withdrawing the [military] who administered. But, he did not do so. Congress could have put an end to it, but that was not done.... it was meant to be continued until it was legislatively changed.... it was to be presumed that the delay was consistent with the true policy of the government; as it was continued until the people of the territory met in convention to form a state government, which was subsequently re-organized by Congress under its power to admit new States into the Union. ... the so-called civil, but really military, government of California, organized as it was as a right of conquest, did not cease or become defunct in consequence of the signature of the treaty of peace with Mexico or from its ratification; and it was continued over a ceded conquest without any violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.(415)
Martial law powers are terminated in only three ways.
First, a Commander-in-Chief can end martial powers by Executive Order. But, a lawfully constituted authority must exist to which he may cede his power. But, if it ended tomorrow, it would make no difference in how the law is administered, until a lawfully constituted authority was inplace.
Second, a conquering power can terminate emergency powers by its own E.O., or decree.
Third, it can be ended by the people if they restore lawful courts, process, and procedure under the authority of the "inherent political powers"(416) of the people. Inherent powers are:
An authority possessed without its being derived from another. A right, ability, or faculty of doing a thing, without receiving that right, ability, or faculty, from another.(417) (and) Those which are enjoyed by the possessors of natural right, without having been received from another. Such are the powers of a people to establish a form of government, of a father to control his children. Some of these are regulated and restricted in their exercise by law, but they are not technically considered in the law, as powers.(418)
This is the cornerstone of the Christian peoples' right to form Christian Jural Societies as discussed in Part Two of this work. If the people resist submission to martial law courts, process, and procedure, and respond with Lawful process, martial law is null and void, ab initio, nunc pro tunc, and the massive profits in martial law are greatly reduced. By this means, the people de-fund martial law.
Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights
Note: The following was researched and first printed in The Christian Jural Society News,(419) as a Multi-part Series by John Joseph. This reveals the vital importance of the Abatement process and the continuous formation of the Christ's assemblies everywhere.
"Commerce" is a supposedly harmless term we hear every day. But what is it and what does it mean to be "engaged in commerce?" Dictionaries have part of the answer and court decisions have part, but, Scripture has the definitive answer. Let us look at each of these and play a few scenarios that exist today. These scenarios, by the way, all look normal and harmless. But as we shall see, are deadly in terms of political, social, and individual impact.
Commerce. Trade on a large scale, or the exchange of commodities. (From the Latin cum mercis.)(420)
This is a simple definition and covers a lot of territory in terms of what can be considered "commerce." Let us then consult the Latin definitions of "commerce" to find out more about this mystery. In the Latin, "commerce" is:
Commerce. Mercatura (especially of the merchant: mercatio (commercial transaction, the buying and selling, Gell, 3, 3): negotium, or, plural negotia (the business which any body carries on, especially as corn-merchant and money-lender): commercium (commerce, commercial intercourse), Sal., Jug., 18, 6, Plin., 3, 1, 3; with any thing, alicujus rei, Plin., 12, 14, 30; then, also=the liberty of commerce): wholesale business, mercatura magna et copiosa: in retail, mercatura tenuis [Vide Trade]. The Roman merchants carry on a commerce with Gaul, mercatores Romani ad Gallos commeant (i.e., they visit Gaul with their merchandise, Caes., B. G., 1, 1). Social intercourse, conversatio, (Vell., Quint.): usus: consuetudo (of his service, &c.): convictus (in so far as one lives with any body). Vide Intercourse. (421)
Contrary to popular belief, the Latin language is not dead. It is carried forward in English today.
"Commerce" deals with the trade, buying, negotiating, profiting, benefitting, selling or exchange of commodities on a large scale between two separate and distinct venues, intercourse. The large scale aspect of commerce necessarily involves the public's (not necessarily Christendom's) participation in some way, either willingly or unwillingly. Profiting or benefitting at the expense of the public, or their government is what must be, and is, licensed, regulated, and taxed:
The term "commerce" as employed in U.S. Const. Art. I, 8, is not limited to exchange of commodities only, but includes, as well, "intercourse" with foreign nations, and between states [venues]; and term "intercourse" includes transportation of passengers(422)
The last phrase in Henius' work, "the exchange of commodities" concerns us the most, because "commodities" is another term which must be defined so we can come to a true and correct definition of what truly is and is not "commerce." And the last phrase in the Raymond decision gives a clue to removing and staying out of commerce: that being, conducting your affairs among those of like-mind in the state of Christendom, thereby not crossing venues.
Commodities are what we hear are being traded on many of the large exchanges in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and others. But no where on news reports are you told what a "commodity" is. Consulting Henius' work:
Commodity. Something which affords convenience or profit, which can be exchanged for some other value. The commodity must be in such tangible form, whether goods and services, that it can be traded for something tangible (goods and services). Thus, a commodity becomes something that can be made the subject of trade, of acquisition as well as of an exchange offering; something possessing exchange value, that can be traded for something else.(423)
This is a broad definition of "commodity." By this definition, anything which can be made the subject of a trade, buy and sell, or exchange is a commodity. Under this heading fall the following:
The word 'goods' has been interpreted generally as meaning tangible movable things, called 'chattels.' In the law of bailments, 'goods' includes money when treated as a commodity and not as a medium of exchange, and also documents and instruments whether representing goods (e.g., bills of lading and warehouse receipts representing goods) or representing intangibles (e.g., certificates of stock representing shares in a corporation, and negotiable and non-negotiable instruments representing rights of action, such as checks, promissory notes, insurance policies, and savings bank books).(424)
Money (magnitude without reference to substance) is a "commodity" when not considered "coin of the realm," but is merely bought, sold, traded, or exchanged for commercial paper or military scrip, i.e., Federal Reserve Notes, and the like. This is the state of affairs when one goes to a coin dealer to buy his "lawful money" and he is charged a tax for the purchase. This is intercourse between a Good and Lawful Christian Man and a licensed merchant with no right to possession. When, however, the "lawful money" of Christendom returns to Christendom, it is no longer a commodity, but returns to its original Lawful character, and to the Person Who has the Right to Possession. Notes, bills, drafts, cheques and all forms of negotiable instruments are "commodities. "Licenses are commodities." Virtually anything that gives an advantage of comfort, ease, profit, or benefit, or which can be negotiated, is a "commodity."
Commodity. What possesses the quality of ease, comfort: commoditas: commodum: opportunitas (convenience). ªProfit, commodum: emolumentum, (advantage, opposed to incommodum, detrimentum): lucrum: fructus (gain: opposed to damnum): questus (gain, which one seeks, profit): utilitas, (general term for the use or serviceableness of any thing). Ware, or merchandise, merx. Commodities, merces.(425)
Benefit. Beneficium. To confer a benefit on any one, beneficium alicui dare, tribuere, in aliquem conferre or deferre; beneficio aliquem afficere: benefacere alicui. Your benefits to me, tua in me officia; tua erga me merita. As a benefit, pro beneficio; in beneficii loco. ªUse, advantage, utilitas, usus; commodum, emolumentum.(426)
Notice, the same words describe "benefit" as a "commodity" or profit. Benefits as profits, if derived from pubic detriment, are commodities. A benefit received from the federal government is a commodity and thus subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause. Benefits from a State government are subject to regulation of intrastate commerce. Remember, benefits cross the boundaries mapped out by the constitutions; thus, establishing a commodity moves one from one venue to another:
But where the effect of intrastate transactions upon interstate commerce is merely indirect, such transactions remain within the domain of [that] state['s] power. If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people and the authority of the State over its domestic concerns would exist only by the sufferance of the federal government.(427)
Now what benefits are you receiving? The benefit of free mail delivery to your house? Please see Randy Lee's articles on the Post Office's 'general delivery.'(428) Do you receive the benefit of "federal corporate employment?" Receipt of any benefit from any government changes your whole relation to the government. Why? Because it puts you on the government defined "fief" or "feud":
Fief. The right bestowed on any body, beneficium: *feudum (technical term).(429)
Further, this sets up what is known as a quasi-contractual relationship, enforced in an action of assumpsit:
Statutory contract is a contract which the statute says shall be implied from certain facts [receipt of benefit], and is governed by the ordinary rules relating to contracts.(430)
A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a benefit by one party with full appreciation of the facts, under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of its reasonable value.(431)
A debt resulting from a normal agreement or contract has always been the result of a promise to pay, and invoked a remedy in the form of assumpsit. However, an assumpsit cannot be applied to actions of debts where there is no agreement unless the court does so by means of a fiction, because in order to support assumpsit, it is necessary to allege a promise, and without agreement there is no promise. Historically, the courts have adopted the fiction of a promise, and it was declared that a promise was implied in law. (432)
For the convenience of the remedy, they have been made to figure as though they sprang from contract, and have appropriated the form of agreement.(433)
But quasi-contracts are insidious and contra bonos mores, when they violate the customs and usages of Good and Lawful Christian People:
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.(434)
Not only is it unscientific, and therefore theoretically wrong, but it is also destructive of clear thinking, and therefore vicious in practice. It needs no argument to establish the proposition that it is not scientific to treat as one and the same thing an obligation that exists in every case because of the assent of the defendant, and an obligation that not only does not depend in any case upon his assent, but in many cases exists without his assent.(435)
That beneficium, benefit, is in a commercial venue separate and distinct from Christendom, which is now under the jurisdiction of the federal military power ever since the states lost in the Lincoln v. All States War, during the hostilities from 1861-1865. When you receive any benefit, gratuity, or bounty, from government, a separate and distinct venue, you are engaged in the commercial activity of making profit or gain at the detriment of the government agency, and are marked a "resident" in this relationship. This is because "residents" exercise no traditionally vested rights retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men; and, are therefore strange to the Good and Lawful Christian Man who sojourns on the land.
It is not Lawfully mandatory that any Good and Lawful Christian Man maintain such a relationship, when that relationship attempts to deprive, cloud or destroy the Christian Man's relationship with his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:
Again it may be asked, what must be done when a human law does not agree with the Divine Law? Must such law be obeyed? Men have no right to make a law that is contrary to the law of God; and we are not bound to obey it.(436)
The way out is to destroy the existence of benefit, profit, ease, or comfort, using the Law:
When performance of contract depends on continued existence of given person or thing [benefit], condition is implied that impossibility arising from perishing of person or thing [benefit] excuses performance.(437)
Where performance depends on existence of a given thing [consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement, performance is excused to extent that the thing [benefit] ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent.(438)
This is the purpose of removing, destroying, returning, or otherwise Lawfully destroying the existence of benefit pleaded in statutory actions against you:
No man can be charged in equity as a partner [promisor, resident], and sued at law as a debtor [Christian Man] of the firm, for his adversary cannot place him in these incompatible legal attitudes.(439)
In the case of free mail delivery, removal of the post office box or sealing of the mail slot in your door is removal of the benefit. The returning of all forms of consideration, benefit, or commodum to the grantor or giver of such, is the answer. In addition, an abatement of the persona designata/nom de guerre further divides the Christian Man of Substance, from the Federal Plantation.
This raises the issue of "unalienable rights." No one has an unalienable right to receive any government "benefits" to the detriment of the public "commerce." This is easily seen:
Unalienable. Incapable of being transferred.
Things which are not in commerce (traditionally vested rights), as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.(440)
Unalienable. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce [traditionally vested rights], as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.(441)
You don't have unalienable rights in commerce, because everything is negotiable "Every man has his price" is the mantra. This is simply because neither you, nor your neighbor, have a right vested by God to lie, cheat, steal or financially profit from one another:
Neither shalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.(442)
Looking at the above then, traditional vested rights which are retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men should never be compromised by entering into commerce, i.e., employment, driving, traveling, "human resource," or calling one's Self a "persona." Labeling one's Self a "persona" is when You say you are an article in commerce, or You answer to some form of commercial process which does not specifically call You. Thus, for example, you work as a welder, or you are a welder. It's all in the words. "As" means like or similar to, but it does not mean you are the commercial article. The other phrase says you are a "mercator," a merchant, a thief. This is important. It comes down to a battle for God's elect:
Mercator, oris, m. [mercor], a trader, merchant, esp. A wholesale dealer (opp. Caupo): Caes., Cic., Juv.(443)
Mercabilis, e, adj. [mercor], that can be bought: Ov.(444)
Mercor, ari [merx]. I. To trade, traffic: Pl. II. To buy, purchase. 1. Lit.: hortos [*432] Hor.: aliquid ab aliquo, Cic.; fundum de pupillo, Cic.; quanti, Plin. 2. Transf.: ego haec oficia mercanda vita puto, Cic. Ep.; hoc mango, Verg. Perf. Part. In Pass. Sense: Sail., prop.(445)
The god of commerce is the Roman god, Mercury:
Mercurius, I, m. The son of Jupiter and Maia, the messenger of the gods; as a herald. The god of eloquence; the god of traders and thieves; the presider over roads; conductor of departed souls to the Lower World; stella Mercuri, Cic.; Mercurialis, e, adj.; Mercuriales, ium, m. Pl. A corporation of traders at Rome.(446)
Good and Lawful Christian Men are to abstain from the appearance of evil. Notice that traders and thieves are on an equal basis here. And this is why commerce must be fully licensed, regulated, and taxed. Thieves deal in speculation, i.e., inflation, deflation, market trends, etc., to derive benefit in the form of gain or profit to the detriment of the public. Speculation is:
Speculate. To undertake a venture the results of which are undetermined and can only be conjectured, with the hope or idea of profiting thereby. The purchase or sale of stocks, commodities, metals, merchandise, or the like, in the hopes of making a profit [getting a benefit] on account of expected but not yet determined fluctuations of market situations or prices [inflation or deflation] at the time the speculation is entered into.(447)
Speculation. From the Latin speculare, to observe, to look around.' The buying or selling of something, or the venture in a transaction the profits [benefits] of which are uncertain and subject to change.(448)
Speculator. The person who buys or sells something, or enters into a transaction by which he hopes to profit [benefit] although at the time of buying, selling, or entering the transaction the chances of profit are uncertain and subject to change.(449)
The gambler [speculator] courts fortune [benefit, commodum]; the insured seeks to avoid misfortune. The contract of gambling tends to increase the inequality of fortune, while the contract of insurance tends to equalize fortune [communism].(450)
This happens all the time. Words have been changed to protect the speculators. They are now called "bankers," "brokers," "insurers," "investors," "venture capitalists," "entrepreneurs," "salesmen," ad nauseam. A question arises at this point: How long or often can government tax a'commodity'? The answer is as long as that commodity is navigated through commerce, deriving a benefit from the public, i.e. to the detriment of the public, it is taxable:
'Commerce' in the sense in which the word is used in the constitution is co-extensive in its meaning with intercourse.'(451)
Commerce includes intercourse, navigation, and not traffic alone.(452)
What appears normal is not Scriptural at all. Good and Lawful Christian Men are warned in Scripture to not deal in such speculation:
Go to now, ye that say, To day or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.(453)
For this reason, when we all stepped into commerce, we all compromised our traditionally vested rights. You have only two absolute "unalienable rights": Life and Liberty. Everything else is conditioned on your conduct and consent. Your Life and Liberty are vested by God in Genesis 2:7. Dominion over property is conditional; this is the lesson of Adam in the garden. See also Lk 12:15 and Mt 4:8.
Just how did we all step into 'commerce'? Perhaps the easiest way to put this is: when we left the land seeking something that really never existed in the first place, except in our own minds, which can be manipulated. Now many of you will say, "We still have our farm." Not so, if it is registered in the county recorder, or if you are registered to vote, or if it has a mortgage, or if it is an asset of a trust, corporation, partnership, etc., or if it has ever been sold for commercial paper, or if its owner is receiving mail at that location. The status of the estate follows the status of its owner. This is what I mean about leaving the land. We were never to sell or compromise the land, because it is not ours: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." Psalm 24:1. See also Psalm 50:12. We were to occupy till He returns, when He comes to take back that which belongs to Him. Occupation is not buying and selling for profit, or speculating with our neighbor. The armies of the earth do not buy and sell; however, their sponsoring speculators do.
Just how dangerous can "harmless commerce" get? I believe the following remarks by Major General Butler in 1933 tell the story about the links between commerce and war:
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small insider group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit [profit] of the very few at the expense [detriment] of the masses [public].
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent interest over here [to pay war bonds from previously funded wars], then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then, the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. This is done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers [speculators]
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' supernationalist capitalism [owned by the previous wars' bondholders and speculators].
I spent most of my time being a high muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American Oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China, in 1927, I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.(454)
From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because you ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.(455)
When commerce begins to wane, and profits are low, wars are fought to create or protect markets for the speculators, who own governments through funding systems, and the taxing power is nothing more than imposed slavery:
Funding System, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides that [*552] on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be formed, and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking fund.(456)
Funding System. The practice of borrowing money to defray the expenses of government.
In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the loan. The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the eastern coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning, took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed. To carry on the war, the new doge, Sebiastian Giani, ordered a forced loan. Every citizen was obliged to contribute one-hundredth of his property, and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practiced the system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to provide large sums of money for the immediate [*1324] exigencies of the state, which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.
In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St. George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to raise a loan, for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside, and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods; and these loans were called terminable annuities. Of late years, however, the practice is different, loans being payable only at the option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.
Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest materially. The national debt of England consists of many different loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest in amount and importance are the three per cent 'consolidated annuities,' or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in 1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which are payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England. The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on most of the funds, and also keeps the transfer-books. When stock is sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser, and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange generally through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor of the stock, are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable on certain fixed days, called accounting-days; and such transactions are called for account,' to distinguish them from the ordinary sales and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at which they will sell and buy, so that sellers and purchasers can always find a market for stock, or can purchase it in such quantities as they may desire, without delay or inconvenience.
In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.
The funding system enables the government to raise money in exigencies, and to spread over many years the taxation which would press too severely on one(457). It affords a ready method of investing money on good security, and it tends to identify the interest of the state and the people. But it is open to many objections, the principal of which is that it induces statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced to provide the means from direct taxation.(458)
And, from Judge Henry Clay Dean in 1868:
But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who would be required to raise standing armies from their children to support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to maintain the [government] funding system.
This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations; that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.
This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country [America] has not been an exception.
In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and unscrupulous tyrants.(459)
And just guess where these international speculators get the bodies to die fighting their dirty little wars? Those who are on the benefice fief, feud. This is on the international level. Domestically, one can find the same occurred during Lincoln's War v. All Christian states:
By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claims of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandized, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South. It is no wonder that their villages have grown into magnificent cities. It is not strange that they have merchant princes, dwelling in gorgeous palaces and reveling in luxuries transcending the luxurious appliances of the East! How could it be otherwise? New York city, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her throne, sparkling in jewels and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to the extreme South; and, with an avidity rarely equaled, grasps our gains and transfers them to herself by taxing us at every step and depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us.(460)
And, Congressman Reagan of Texas in 1861:
You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.
We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them.(461)
Domestically, Lincoln used deception to "save" the Union. This is evident from the record: If the Union were saved intact, Reconstruction was a nullity, because the states were intact. If, however, the Union was destroyed, Reconstruction was necessary for erecting a new union in the image and likeness of its speculating creator, Mercury, under the imposed military power of the commander-in-chief, dedicated to the proposition that public slavery, by destroying Christianity in the states, for enhancing and expanding commerce, is a better idea.
It is no secret that the criminally infamous Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, in 1861, through his factotum Cooke, boasted that the initial bonds issued to fund the Lincoln v. All Christian states War were a first mortgage upon all the property of the United States. It is also no secret that the interest on these bonds was not paid as late as 1953. This is that same Chief Justice Chase, by the way, who created and established, by his own "judicial decree," the huge tax base to pay his filthy war bonds sold to the Bank of England, contained in the purported Fourteenth Amendment. This is why the "public" debt cannot be questioned. Could this have been a conflict of interest?
It is no secret "harmless commerce" is dangerous, as John Adams clearly shows:
Principiis obsta [*oppose the first appearance of evil], nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society.(462)
Because of unrighteous dealings, injuries, and riches got by deceit, the kingdom is translated from one people to another.(463)
And again, Judge Henry Clay Dean:
For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy.(464)
What hath "commerce" wrought? The destruction of a confederacy of Christian states.
If we look about the land today, there appears to be nothing to justify the maintenance of "a permanent state of national emergency" in the United States. There isn't a war going on; we aren't in a major economic collapse (yet), and the cold war appears to have thawed.
The question is, why a permanent state of national emergency?
The answer comes down to something quite simple and actually can be summarized in one word - hooked, a.k.a. addicted!!!
In earlier versions of this work, we summarized things by asking a good many questions and providing a simple, yet, unsatisfying solution.
Subsequent research, based on a theory of the case that developed out of earlier versions of this work, now shows a clearer and more concise answer. Briefly it comes down to the following.
At least seven years before Lincoln s War, a number of states began to adjourn their state legislatures sine die.(465) This discovery makes no sense until we realize that the U.S. Senators of these Northern states, appointed at that time by state legislatures,(466) were the most radical proponents of policies that would drive the South out of the Union.
If successful, this would have eliminated eleven (11) out of thirty-seven (37) states and only twenty-six would be left. Missouri and three other states (one may have been California) were contemplating an exodus too, though not to join the South. If these four (4) states leave we are down to twenty-two (22) states left in the Union.
Since it takes only a two-thirds majority (25) of the states to secede and terminate the federal Constitution, any combination of ten (10) states, by sine die adjournment ends the Union. For all intents and purposes, there would be no united States of America, only a collection of independent countries on the North American continent.
But, why would the states want to terminate the Constitution???
The answer is, the Christian under-pinnings and presuppositions embodied in the Constitution put too many restrictions on development of commerce between the states. With the Constitution gone, it was 'survival of the fittest,'(467) and with the money power held by Northern banks, it is likely that much of the Southern raw material production would have ended up in the hands of Northern industrialists at the price that the North wanted to pay for it..
The South would have been reduced to feudal states under control of the Northern commercial interests, and slavery would probably still exist as a matter of sheer economic necessity.
Then, along came Abe with a better idea.
Lincoln's ego could not agree with the idea of the united States being broken up, especially on his watch. He also knew the smell of the winds blowing out of the North and turned it to his advantage. His problem was, how to keep the Union together at least while he was President, and still satisfy the demands of the Northern industrialists, commercial interests, and bankers.
Remember, at this time in our nation's history, the country was literally busting out at the seams with western expansion, discovery of gold in California, development of steam plants and engines, invention, and so on. Everyone was scrambling to get his piece of the pie, and with the Christian consensus greatly reduced, there was no one to sound the alarm from the pulpit.
We can now see that Lincoln's plan to put the nation under military law and resurrect the old Roman law with its heavy emphasis on commerce, satisfied all competing interests, except those of the South and the common people of America. More importantly, it got rid of the burdens of the Constitution and served notice on a Christian world that, the united States was no longer a Christian nation.
To show its gratitude to the United States for what it had done in rejecting Christianity, France produced a monument to its own French Enlightenment view of law and liberty. Today, this monument stands just off the coast of New York on an island all its own. This monument may be called the Statue of Liberty, but it is in fact, a celebration of lawlessness and licentiousness. The Greek and Roman character of the statue is lost only on the ignorant.
That the elimination of the restrictions of God's Law was in the mind of all, is clear. The assault on Christianity in politics and civil government that was begun by Lincoln in the massive blood-letting of Lincoln s War was simply carried to its logical conclusion by Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Clinton, etc.
Today, the United States government is in the unenviable position of being between a rock and a hard place. Its people demand `bread and circuses,' its politicians are little more than dilettantes, major industrial powers upon whom the tax system is based are leaving the land, the lawyers and tax men suck the substance from the people's lives and subvert their liberties daily, the bureaucrats cannot even get paid, and throughout the land there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth as the pain level rises.
All this because Christians gave up the God who gave them life, liberty, and peace, for the gods of Mars and Mercury so they could engage in commerce and the 'privilege' of engaging in legalized theft, debt, and profit. We all became 'hooked' on commerce and the easy life and re-defined Our Christianity to justify it. Even our churches sit in commerce as 501(c)3 corporations.
Either We turn back to the God and obey His Laws, or God will grind us to dust, mixed Our own blood, on Our own land. But,
If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.(468)
But if ye turn away, and forsake My statutes and My commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; then will I pluck them up by the roots out of My land, which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for My name, will I cast out of My sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a by-word among all nations.(469)
Note: God is not speaking here to humanists but, to You and I, yesterday, today, and forever.
Even so, Come, Lord Jesus. Amen.
1. "PATRIOT. Mistakenly (with possessive) as if = upholder, devotee: mid-C 17. Weever, 1631 'A Patriot of Truth.' O.E.D." A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 610. [Emphasis added.]
2. Two Hundred Million Americans in Search of a Government by E.E. Schattschneider (1969), p. 32. [*Insertions in brackets added].
3. Compiled from data in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1993, at page 127.
4. Perpetual Budget Deficit Syndrome.
5. Letter dated December 6, 1967, by Andrew W. Cordier of the Fund of Education in World Order.
6. Two Hundred Million Americans in Search of a Government, by E.E. Schattschneider (1969), pp. 33-34. [*Emphasis and insertions added].
7. Forward March! Through Battle to Victory, by Henry Tuckley (1890), pp. 27-30. [Emphasis added].
8. Ps 33:4. Note: All Scriptural quotes are from The Authorized 1611 King James Version.
9. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
10. John Winthrop, speech to the General Court of Massachusetts, July 3, 1645, from Democracy Liberty and Property (Macmillan, 1942 & 1955), pp. 292-294. [*Insertions added]
11. Thus, for example, "The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel" was an early eleemosynary corporation that bears little resemblance to today's 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporations used by modern churches.
12. For a complete work on the rise of 501-(c)3 Church Corporations and how this corrupted the Gospel message, see, How the Church Fell from Grace, by John William and The King's Men, published by The Christian Jural Society Press, 1998.
13. Protestant Concepts of Church and State, by Sanders. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, page 82.
14. 34 Emery Law Journal, 617, at 630, by James J. Fishman, Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law.
15. The lower case 'u' in united is deliberate.
16. Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, by William G. Loughlin. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1967, ppg. 220-221.
17. Ibid. pg. 222-223. [*Insertion added].
18. American Churches and the Negro, by W.D. Weatherford (1957), The Christopher Publishing House, p. 17.
19. The Negro in Virginia (1940), Writers' Program of the W.P.A., Hastings House, New York, pp. 103-104.
20. Ibid., 104.
21. Plantation slavery in Georgia, by Ralph Betts Flanders (1933),Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, p. 174.
22. The Negro in Virginia, p. 104.
23. Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina, by John S. Bassett (1896), Johns Hopkins University Studies, vol. XIV, p. 50 (quoted from Laws of 1715, Ch. 46, sect. 18).]
24. The Negro in Virginia, p. 105. [*Insertions added]
25. From Slavery to Freedom, by John Hope Franklin (1948), Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 161.
26. The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by C. Vann Woodward (1955), Oxford University Press, New York, p. 16.
30. Black Odyssey, by Roi Ottley (1948), Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, p. 88; and, The Racial Problem in Christian Perspective, by Haselden (1959), pp. 24-30.
31. Chapter XXXIV of Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, October session, 1785 (Richmond, 1786).
32. 2 Cor 3:17.
33. Matthew 12:30.
34. 1 Corinthians 1:10-14. [Emphasis added].
35. See, "How the Church fell from Grace," supra.
36. 2 Timothy 3:5.
37. John 5:23. [*Insertion added]
38. Matthew 6:24. See also, Tiffany on Agency.
39. An American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster (1828).
41. 1 Stat. 264-265.
42. A Compilation of the Addresses and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, Vol. I. New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897, pp. 149-154.
43. See Ibid., p. 181
44. The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1957. By Edward S. Corwin, Fourth Rev. Ed. N.Y., N.Y. Univ. Press, 1957., p. 158.
45. See, Ibid, p. 181. [Emphasis added].
46. The Louisiana Purchase money, however, never reached France because the ship carrying the money was captured by the pirate, Juan Gaspar, off the coast of Florida.
47. Ibid., Messages and Papers of The Presidents, by J.D. Richardson. pp. 465-466. [Emphasis added].
48. Is 9:6. [Emphasis added].
49. Theory of the Common Law (1849), by James Walker, p. 2. [Emphasis and *insertions added].
50. Ps 33:12.
51. See, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December, 1917, dealing with the Control and Taking of Private Property for the Public Use, Benefit, or Welfare; Presidential Proclamations and Executive Order of Analogous Legislation Since 1775. Washington: U.S.G. Print. Off., 1918, pp. 990-1026.
52. A Brief History of Emergency Powers In The United States, A Working Paper, Prepared for the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers: U.S. Senate. U.S.G. Print. Off., Wash. July, 1974, p. 8.
53. Dugan's Executors v. United States, 3 Wheat. 172 (1818)
54. United States v. Tingy, 5 Pet. 115 (1831).
55. Corwin, op. cit., p. 149. [Emphasis added]
56. Smith v. Kearney, 2 Barb.(N.Y.) 533; Doe v. Ladd, 77 Ala. 223. [Emphasis added]
57. Sugden, Powers, 588. [Emphasis added]
58. Sugden, Powers, 258, 659. See also Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 318. [Emphasis added]
59. 2 Strange, 820; 6 D.& E. 443.
60. Paulding v. Decatur, 14 Peters, 497; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 102. [Emphasis added]
61. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148. [Emphasis added]
62. City of Tacoma v. Peterson, 165 Wash. 461, 5 P.2d 1022, 1024. Mott v. Hull, 51 Okl. 602, 152 P. 92, L.R.A.1916B, 1184.
63. Morton v. Comptroller General, 4 S.C. 473." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
64. State ex. rel. Heller v. Thornhill, 174 Mo.App. 469, 160 S.W. 558, 559." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.1968), p. 1591.
65. Vose v. Deane, 7 Mass. 280; Savacol v. Boughton, 5 Wend.(N.Y.) 170, 21 Am.Dec. 181; Waldo v. Wallace, 12 Ind. 569.
66. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1234.
67. U.S. to Use of Kinney v. Bell, C.C.Pa., 127 F. 1002; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N.W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915; Reid v. Hood, 2 Nott & McC., S.C., 169, 10 Am.Dec. 582." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
68. Note the lower case spelling on 'superior court' and 'county.'
69. See Jameson on Constitutional Conventions, §§ 415-418 and pp. 479-520. [Emphasis added]
70. United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. (Case No. 16,151) 785, 793. [*Insertion added]
71. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (1868), p. 168, citing Perkins, J., in Madison & Indianapolis Railroad Co. v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 222. See also Probasco v. Raine (1893), 50 OhioSt. 387, 391. [Emphasis added]
72. Probasco v. Raine (1893), 50 OhioSt. 387, 391. [Emphasis added]
73. Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Emphasis added] Note: William C. Robinson, LL.D., was a law professor of elementary law in Yale University.
74. 59 C.J. 18 citing Texas v. White 7 Wall. 700.
75. 59 C.J 18 quoting Silver Bow County v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306, 12 P. 688, 690, aff'd. 139 U.S. 438, 11 S.Ct. 594, 35 L.Ed. 210. [*Insertion added]
76. Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245. [*Insertion added]
77. 6 Opins. Atty.-Gen. 28.
78. 6 Opins. Atty-.Gen. 220.
79. 6 Opins. Atty.-Gen. 466 cited in Corwin, p. 142.
80. A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. 9. [Emphasis and *insertions in brackets added]
81. 2 Stat. 259, April 10, 1806.
82. See, The History of the Hartford Convention, with a Review of the Policy of the United States Government which led to the War of 1812, by Theodore Dwight, Secretary of the Convention, Published by N. & J. White, New York: 1833. Available from The Christian Jural Society Press.
83. Destruction and Reconstruction (1879), by Taylor, pp. 9-10. [Emphasis added]
84. Our Nation (1942), by Barker and Commager, pp. 579-581. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
85. Matt 4:8 and Luke 12:15 and the many verses related to commercial practices by the merchants, merchantmen, etc.
86. What has been called the Revolutionary War, is more properly the Colonial War, since 'revolution' was foreign to the founders and did not come into use until after the Constitution. Revolution was purely French and originated in Diderot's Encyclopedia. It means, the violent overthrow of an existing power. The Founders were not trying to overthrow an existing power, but preserving that which was being taken away from them.
87. Thus, government begins to enter commerce instead of regulating it.
88. Our Nation (1942), pp. 579-581. [*Insertions added]
89. Origin of the Late War, by G. Lunt. [Emphasis added[
90. Senator Thomas H. Benton, cited in Memoirs of Service Afloat, p. 60. [Emphasis added.]
91. View of the Constitution, (Philadelphia, 1825, 2d Ed.1829)
92. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 3029 3030. The reader is referred to Charles F. Adams', 'Studies Military and Diplomatic,' and 'Trans Atlantic Historical Solidarity,' for his consideration of this subject.
93. Ibid., p. 297.
94. Ibid. p. 302.
95. Ibid. , pp. 3029, 3030. The reader is referred to Charles F. Adams', 'Studies Military and Diplomatic,' and 'Trans Atlantic Historical Solidarity,' for his consideration of this subject.
96. Letter from General Robert Edward Lee to Lord Acton, 15 December, 1866. From General Robert E. Lee After Appomattox, ed. By Franklin L. Riley, Macmillan Company publisher, 1922. p. 240-241.
97. See, Charles Warren, The Supreme Court and Sovereign States, Appendix One. At the time Story wrote his commentaries, and Webster debated Hayne, Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention had not yet been published. Thus both were unaware of the true meaning of 'We the People.' *See also David Hawke, The Colonial Experience (1966, The Bobbs-Merrill Co.), p. 673.
98. Attorney-General John Black, in an opinion quoted in the Annual Cyclopedia (1861), p. 698. [Emphasis added]
99. Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), §510, Vol. 1, p. 488. For further evidence on this, see The Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed.Cas.No. 18,274, 30 Fed.Cas. 1042, 1045, 2 Spr. 292. [Emphasis added]
100. Report of the Commission of Intergovernmental Relations (1955), p. 22. Formed by Public Law 109, 83rd Cong. [Emphasis added]
101. Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, p. 82. [Emphasis added]
103. Crimes of the Civil War (1868), by Judge Henry Clay Dean, p. 27. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
104. Law and Revolution (1983), by Berman, p. vi.
105. State v. Clausen, 85 Wash. 260, 148 P. 28, 32, Ann.Cas.1916B, 810. [Emphasis added]
106. In re Peabody's Estate, 21 Cal.App.2d 690, 70 P.2d 249, 250.
107. Prescott Courier v. Board of Sup'rs of Yavapai County, 49 Ariz. 423, 67 P.2d 483, 486.
108. Benjamin Rose Institute v. Myers, 92 Ohio St. 252, 110 N.E. 924, 926, 926, L.R.A.1916D, 1170; Barting v. Wait, 96 Neb. 532, 148 N.W. 507, 509.
109. Halifax, Anal. 39; Pothier, Tr. des Donations testamentaires, c. 2, s. 1, sec. 1; Dig. 28. 5; 1, 1; 28. 6. 1, 2, sec. 4.
110. Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wisc. 70, 1 N.W. 92, 50 N.W. 1103; State v. Edmondson, 88 Ohio St. 625, 106 N.E. 41, 44.
111. Lieb. Civil Lib. 300.
112. Henderson v. Shreveport Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 134 La. 39, 63 So. 616, 618, 51 L.R.A.N.S. 448; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 941.
113. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "State," p. 3124. [Government is a different State from the state.]
114. Roscoe Pound, Administrative Agencies and the Law, American Affairs Pamphlets, April 1946, p. 5. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
115. See L.R. 6 P.C. 134; 5 Barn. & Ald. 335; Pol.Cont. 235.
116. 4 H.L.Cas. 1; Greenh. Pub.Pol. 2.
118. Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H.L.Cas. 235; Smith v. R.R. Co., 115 Cal. 584, 47 P. 582; Workmen's Comp. Bd. of Kentucky v. Abbott, 212 Ky. 123, 278 S.W. 533, 536, 47 A.L.R. 789; Driver v. Smith, 89 N.J.Eq. 339, 104 A. 717, 725; Nashville Ry. & Light Co. v. Lawson, 144 Tenn. 78, 229 S.W. 741, 743; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Coates, 112 Tex. 267, 246 S.W. 356, 359; People v. Herrin, 284 Ill. 368, 120 N.E. 274, 275; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Moore, D.C.Or., 3 F.2d 653. [Emphasis added]
119. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Kinney, 95 OhioSt. 64, 115 N.E. 505, 506, Ann.Cas.1918B, 286.
120. Brown v. American Ry. Express Co., 128 S.C. 428, 123 S.E. 97, 98; In re Ralin's Estate, 316 Mo. 492, 291 S.W. 120, 122, 51 A.L.R. 877; Hogston v. Bell, 185 Ind. 536, 112 N.E. 883, 886; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hamburger, 174 Mich. 254, 140 N.W. 510. 512.
121. 38 Ch.Div. 359; Chaffee v. Farmer's Co-Op Elevator Co., 39 N.D. 585, 168 N.W. 616, 618; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), pp. 1317-1318. [Emphasis added]
122. Treason in America, by Anton Chaitkin, published by New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, 1982, (2d. ed., 1985), pp.223 225. [Emphasis added]
123. Ibid., pp. 221-222.
124. Ibid. at p. 228 quoting Steven B. Oates, To Purge this Land with Blood: a Biography of John Brown, p. 158.
125. Graham, Everyman's Constitution (1968), pp. 237-238, quoted in Government by Judiciary (1977), p. 231, ft.note 6.
126. Mulford, Republic of God (1881), p. 49. See also Rosenberg, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy, and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience 1660-1815 (1958), pp. 40-41.
127. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), p. 691.
128. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), p. 511.
129. The Secret Six: John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement, by Otto J. Scott. Published by Uncommon Books, P.O. Box 2033, Murphys, California  p.23
130. Ibid., p.192.
131. Ibid., p. 191.
132. Ibid., p. 71
133. Ibid., p. 70.
134. The complete transcript of The Trial of John Brown is available from The Christian Jural Society Press.
135. Abraham Lincoln, in a handbill dated August 11, 1846. [Emphasis added]
136. Lamon, Life of Lincoln, p. 488. [Emphasis added]
137. Lamon, Life of Lincoln, p. 157, et seq.
138. History of the United States, Vol. IV, p. 213, and in Vol. III, p. 368, in a note. [Emphasis added]
139. Minor, The Real Lincoln (1928), p. 28.
140. John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner in a letter to John Herndon, cited in Herndon's Life of Lincoln, p. 356. [Emphasis added]
141. Herndon's Life of Lincoln, pp. 359-360. (Da Capo Reprints, 1977) [Emphasis added]
142. Herndon's Letter to Ward Lamon dated February 25, 1870, cited in The Hidden Lincoln (1938), by Emanuel Hertz, pp. 65-66. [Emphasis added]
143. The Real Lincoln (1928), by Minor, p. 29. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
144. From Lincoln's speech before Washingtonian Temperance Society, Springfield, Illinois, February 22, 1842--Complete Works, I, p. 209, cited in The Lincoln Treasury (1950), p. 344.
145. Circa 1856 from Life on the Circuit with Lincoln, by Henry Clay Whitney, (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1940), p. 66, cited in The Lincoln Treasury (1950), p. 344. [Emphasis added]
146. Theo. Roosevelt, in a speech before the "Grand Army of the Republic" at Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910; in Democracy Liberty and Property (Macmillan, 1942), pp. 679-683. [*Insertion added.]
147. Herndon's Life of Lincoln, p. 357. [*Insertion added.]
148. Minor, op. cit., p. 30.
149. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 251. [Emphasis added]
150. Lincoln's speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857--Complete Works, II, p. 319, cited in The Lincoln Treasury (1950), pp. 61-62. [Emphasis and *Insertion added.]
151. See Article III of the Constitution for the united States of America where this point is made clear.
152. Speech made in Charleston, Illinois September 18, 1858, from 3 Illinois Historical Collection 267, and cited by Douglass in his rejoinder with Lincoln at page 415.
153. Speech to deputation of free colored men, Aug. 14, 1862, from The Lincoln Encyclopedia (1950), compiled by Archer W. Shaw, p. 264, citing vol. 8, p. 2 of Nicolay and Hay's work.
154. Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, dated September 2, 1863, from The Civil War and Reconstruction (1951), by J. G. Randall, p. 494, citing Works, vol. II, pp. 402-403. Also cited in The Lincoln Treasury (1950), pp. 89-90. [Emphasis added]
155. Abraham Lincoln's Philosophy of Common Sense (1965), part III, p. 1176. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
156. Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
157. An Act making an additional article of war, enacted March 13, 1862, quoted by Lincoln in his proclamation of September 22, 1862. [*Insertion added]
158. 1 Stat. 95 (1789), p. 96. [Emphasis added]
159. Ibid. [Emphasis added]
160. U.S. v. Lucienne D'Hotelle de Benitez Rexach (1977), 558 F.2d 37. See also Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 & United States of America v. Slater (1982), 545 F.Supp. 179, 182.
161. Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938), 304 U.S. 405, 58 S.Ct. 969, 82 L.Ed. 1427.
162. The Confiscation of Enemy Private Property (1923), 3 Bos.U.L.R. 156, 170. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
163. Crimes of the Civil War (1868), p. 495. [Emphasis added]
164. Daniel 11:37-39. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
165. Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln,, by Allen Thorndike, quoting Rice, 1863 (New York: Harper & Bros., 1885, 1888, and 1909), p. 168, cited in the Lincoln Treasury (1950), pp. 327-328. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
166. See, The Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress; Begun and Held at the City of Washington, December 3, 1860, in the Eighty Fifth Year of the Independence of the United States. Published at Washington: by George W. Bowman, Senate Printer, 1860-61.
167. Robert's Rules of Order Revised, Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Edition, by General Henry M. Robert, Scott, Foresman and Company, Publisher, 1915, pages 257-261.
168. Robert's Rules, supra, page 62.
169. Robert's Rules, supra, page 63.
170. See, 12 Stat. 665; Repealed and replaced by 13 Stat. 99, The National Banking Act.
171. See 13 Stat. 99 (1864). Beneficial Loan Soc. of New Orleans v. Strauss, La.App., 148 So. 85, 87. Cited in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968.
172. Robs.Bankr. 13; Bankr.Act 1869, §55." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 359.
173. The Congressional Record, for March 17, 1993. P. H1303.
174. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131.
175. International Bank v. Sherman, 101 U.S. 406, 25 L.Ed. 866; and see Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 697. [*Insertion added]
176. Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1861 which also called out seventy-five thousand militiamen.
177. See Proclamation of February 28, 1863.
178. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [*Insertion added]
179. The California legislature was confused on what day to adjourn sine die. See, Statutes of California, 14th Session, 1868 at pp. 790-91. Published by Benjamin P. Avery, State Printer. 1863.
180. See, Connecticut, Statutes at Large, "Adjournment", 1853.
181. The District of Columbia was incorporated by 16 Statutes at Large, 419.
182. 16 Stat. 419
183. Grant v. Cooke (1871), 7 D.C. 165.
184. Actually a series of Acts are subsumed under the heading of the Reconstruction Acts which began to be formulated in 1865 and continued through March 2 to July 17, 1867.
185. 12 Ops Atty.-Gen. 182, pp 1-2, June 12, 1867. Available from The Christian Jural Society Press. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
186. See House Report 262, post.
187. Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, Vol. II, pp. 1267-8.
188. Wood, The Era of Reconstruction (1975), pp. 26-27. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
189. Baldwin v. Franks (1887), 120 U.S. 678, 690-692, 75 S.Ct. 656, 32 L.Ed. 766.
190. The Congressional Record - House, June 13, 1967, page 15643. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
191. Ibid. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
192. Ibid. [Emphasis added]
193. Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer. 3rd Ed. Revised. Franklin Hudson Publishing Company, Kansas City, Missouri. 1914. P. 45. Available from The Christian Jural Society Press.
194. Hefferman v. Porter (1867), 6 Coldw.(46 Tenn.) 391.
195. Ibid., p. 391.
196. 3 Am. Law Rec. 738.
197. See the detailed argument in Dyett vs. Turner, where is detailed the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.
198. See, THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION, in The Congressional Record - House, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646. Available from The Christian Jural Society Press.
199. 14 Stat. 27.
200. Justice Wayne, in the Circuit Court at Washington, quoted in the Annual Cyclopedia, 1861.
201. Genesis 1:1.
202. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
203. See below the definition of 'Civil Affairs.'
204. United States vs. Sonnenschein, 1 C.M.R. ,(1951)
205. A Brief History of Emergency Powers In the United States, A Working Paper, Prepared for the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated emergency Powers, United States Senate.93rd Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 1974. P. v.
206. Ibid., p. 15. From Rossiter, po. Cit., p. 230; the citation appearing in the quotation is from W.A. Dunning, Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Macmillan, 1898, p. 20.
207. See, State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 F. 353.
208. Ibid., this cite is found in the first headnote.
209. Field, dissenting opinion, Mechanics' and Traders' Bank v. Union Bank (1874), U.S. 276, 301-302. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
210. These courts 'displaced and superseded every previous institution of the vanquished or deposed political power which was incompatible with them.' Leitensdorfer v. Webb, ante. As to the courts established by the British upon their occupation of New York in 1776-7, see Jones, History of New York, vol. 2, p. 120.
211. The order further appointed a person named judge of the court, and empowers him to appoint a prosecuting attorney, marshal and clerk and these appointments are 'to continue during the pleasure of the President, not extending beyond the military occupation of the city of New Orleans, or the restoration of the civil authority in that city and in the State of Louisiana.' An interesting account of this Court is to be found in Moore's Rebellion Record, vol. X, pp. 341-346.
212. 9 Wall. 129. And see New Orleans Steamship Co., ante.
213. 19 Wall. 519. And see Burke v. Tregre, 22 La.Ann. 629.
214. 13 Am.Law.Reg. 534. And see Hefferman v. Porter, 6 Coldw.(Tenn.) 391.
215. 22 Wall. 276, See this case also in 22 La.Ann. 387.
216. By G. O., Dept. Of the Gulf, of May 1, 1862.
217. G. O. 45, Dept. Of the Gulf, 1863.
218. G. O. 41, Dept. Of Va., 1863
219. G. O. 6, Dept. Of the Gulf, 1864.
220. G. O. 12, Dept. Of Ark., 1865.
221. G. O. 31, Dept. Of Miss., 1865.
222. G. O. 102, Dept. Of the South, 1865; S. O. 9, State of So. Ca. 1866.
223. G. O. 37, Dept. Of So. Ca., 1866.
224. G. O. 103, Dept. Of Washington, 1865.
225. Hefferman v. Porter, 6 Coldw.(Tenn.) 391; State v. Stillman, 7 id. 341.
226. By G.O. 5, Div. Of the James, May 3, 1865. It is declared in this Order that--'The fees charged will be simply sufficient to pay its expenses. Any surplus will be given to the poor.…No fees will be charged to the poor.…In its decisions the court will be governed by the principles of equity and justice. ... white and colored, will be allowed the benefit of its jurisdiction. All proceedings will be simple and brief, and directed solely to ... securing exact justice.' By G.O. 10, id., the jurisdiction of the court was extended to the counties of Henrico and Chesterfield; and by G. O. 114, id., to the entire Dept. of Va., 'as to suits by loyal owners to recover possession of real and personal property, sold or disposed of by authority of the confiscation laws of the confederate government.' An instance of a similar court called a 'commission,' consisting of three Mexicans as 'Arbitrators,' to determine an old litigated controversy as to the rights of two citizens to certain land, was established, in the Mexican War, by Gen. Wool, in G. O. 516 of his command, of 1847.
227. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129.
228. For further recognition of the authority of these war-courts, see Handlin v. Wickliffe, 12 Wall. 173; Lanfear v. Mestier, 18 La.Ann. 497; Taylor v. Graham, id. 656; Scott v. Billgerry, 40 Miss. 119; Murrell v. Jones, id., 565; also Cooley, Prins. Const. Law, 44, 87; Whtiting, War Powers, 277.
229. Chase's Decisions, 133.
230. Snell v. Faussatt, 1 Washington, 271; 11 Opins. Atty-Gen. 86, 149. See also Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents (1920), pp. 803-805.
231. C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (1966), p. 14-15.
232. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, by John Bouvier, Third Revision, by Francis Rawle, Vol. I, Vernon Law Book Co., Kansas City, Missouri and West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota. (1914), p. 149.
233. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision, supra, p. 141.
234. Ibid., p. 141.
235. Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959.
236. The Code of Federal Regulations at 24 C. F.R. 6865.
237. 4 U.S.C., Chap. 1, Secs. 1, 2, & 3.
238. 34 Ops. Atty Gen., 483
239. 34 Ops. Atty Gen., 483, at 485.
240. Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924, (1925 Edition), and in 34 Ops, supra.
241. United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, October 1, 1979.
242. Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), p. 81.
244. Manual for Courts Martial, U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C.
245. See, "Militia leader goes to jail for contempt," in the Valley Daily News, Kent, Washington, Tuesday, May 7, 1996.
246. Article Four, Section Four.
247. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Los Angeles Co. (1934), 2 Cal. App. 2d. 600 at 608.
248. Constitution of California, art. VI, sect., 14; People v. Hamilton, 103 Cal. 488, 37 Pac. 627.
249. Political code of California, Section 4152.
250. 5 California Jurisprudence, Section 5, p. 222.
251. Dictionary of Military Terms (DOD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 73. [Emphasis added]
252. See, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Lincoln Heading, by James D. Robinson, Vol. Vii. Published by the Bureau of National Literature, Inc., New York, 1897.
253. Black on Interpretation of Laws, §76, p. 108.
The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative power to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the Congress." Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co. (1912), 224 U.S. 194, 214, 32 S.Ct. 436, 441, 56 L.Ed. 729. Thus, "as to all of the following, the constitutionality of their creation and of the grants of powers to them has been sustained: The Interstate Commerce Commission, with control over all the railroads of the country doing an interstate business; the Federal Trade Commission, designed to stop unfair methods of competition in business; the Federal Reserve Board, unifying the banking system of the country and with a measure of control over the national banks;…various forms of industrial commissions in the several states administering workmen's compensation laws; boards and commissions authorized to fix minimum wages and maximum hours of labor for women and children in industry; state and national civil service commissions, prescribing rules for the appointment and removal of public officers; railroad boards, public service commissions or public utility commissions, with control over the various forms of public service corporations, the service they render, and the rates they may charge; state and local boards of health; commissions to regulate the sale to the public of stocks and bonds and enforce the 'blue sky' laws; boards of censors for moving pictures; and boards of examiners or commissioners having control over the licensing of persons desiring to practice as physicians, dentists, pharmacists, engineers, architects, or to engage in any one of a large number of occupations." Black, pp. 110, 111.
254. Black, pp. 140, 141. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
255. Black, p. 141. See also Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 80-81. [Emphasis added]
256. Federal Radio Comm. v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464; Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438; Postum Cereal Company v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693; Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428, 444. [Emphasis added]
257. Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 284; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U.S. 716. See also 61 Reports of the American Bar Assn. 723, 724 (1936). [Emphasis added]
258. 49 Stat. 500, 45 U.S.C.A. 301.
259. 'Document' means any order, regulation, rule certificate, code of fair competition, license, notice, or similar instrument presented by a federal agency; 'Federal agency' means President, executive department, independent board, establishment, bureau, agency institution, commission or separate office of the executive branch of the government.
260. 61 Reports of the American Bar Assn. 780 (1936). [Emphasis and *insertion added]
261. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim", p. 2155.
262. Ferrantello v. State, 256 S.W.2d 587, 590.
263. Bradley, California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, at 40. [Emphasis added]
264. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141.
265. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2136.
266. Lord C. J. Vaughan in Thomas v. Sorrell, Vaughan, 351. And see Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. 838.
267. Walsh, Law of Property (1915), p. 699. [Emphasis added]
268. Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal.App.2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
269. American States Water Service Co. of California v. Johnson, 32 Cal.App.2d 606, 88 P.2d 770, 774; Garford Trucking v. Hoffman, 114 N.J.L. 522, 177 A. 882, 887.
270. State ex rel. Biscayne Kennel Club v. Stein, 130 Fla. 517, 178 So. 133, 135; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438, 452. See also Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1067. [Emphasis added.]
271. Bodin, Republique, 1, Chap. 8, ed. 1629, p. 132; Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestitis, chap. 3.
272. Baldus, De Leg. et Const. Digna Vox, 2 ed. 1496, fol. 51b, ed. 1539. See also Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907), 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834.
273. Bank of Commerce & Trust v. Senter (1923), 149 Tenn. 569, 571.
274. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 852.
275. Durham v. State, 117 Ind. 477, 19 N.E. 327; Brown v. Fifield, 4 Mich. 322; Powell v. Sims, 5 W.Va. 1, 13 Am.Rep. 62. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1660. [Emphasis added.]
276. Grace v. Moseley, 112 Ill.App. 100. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary, "Civil Rights," p. 500. [*Insertion added.]
277. Smith, Handbook on Elementary Law (1939), p. 81.
279. "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His [the Father's] glory that sent Him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. John 7:18.
280. Genesis 1:26-27.
281. See Select Documents of English Constitutional History, ed. By George Burton Adams, H. Morse Stephens, published by the Macmillan Co., 1906, p. 339.
282. The Leiber Instructions were promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by Lincoln, on April 24, 1863.
283. California Political Code, Section 4468. See also California Civil Code Section 22.2. For your State see, Sheppard's
284. California Political Code of 1872, Section 4. [Emphasis added.]
285. The Constitution of the State of California, 1879, 1912 Edition, Article One, Section Three. See also the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1868, and the State of Oklahoma, 1912. Who really won the War or did we all lose?
286. Ibid., Article Two, Section One. Note also State of California Political Code §1083. [Emphasis added.]
287. Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 125-126, 27 L.Ed.2d 272, 282, 91 S.Ct. 260. [Emp. added.] See also, Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 364 U.S. 339, 5 L.Ed.2d 110, 81 S.Ct. 125; Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 347 U.S. 483, 98 L.Ed. 873, 74 S.Ct. 686, 38 ALR2d 1180; Slaughter House Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 71-72, 21 L.Ed. 394, 407.
288. 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274 (1884)
289. See Section 4 of the "Amendment."
290. See Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.
291. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S. 483.
292. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." Mt 23:29-32.
293. At 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867)
294. 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867), 185-186. [Emphasis added.]
295. Dunning's, The Constitution of the United States in Civil War and Reconstruction (1885), p. 120. [Emphasis added.]
296. Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176. [Emphasis added.]
297. Jeremiah 13:23.
298. David Dudley Field, argument for Lambdin P. Milligan, in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866). [Emphasis added.]
299. The Spirit of the Common Law, by Roscoe Pound, (1921) p. 41. [Emphasis added.]
300. Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728. [Emphasis added.]
301. Runkel v. Winemiller et al (1799), 4 H.&McH. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
302. See the Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts; Holland, Jurisprudence, pp. 139-140; and State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477.
303. Brother Paul to our Brothers at Rome, chapter six verses thirteen through sixteen. [*Insertion added.]
304. Revelation 12:4.
305. His important works included his Manual of Political Ethics and, On Civil Liberty and Self Government. Cites above from The Army Lawyer, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Out of Print.
306. Note: One of his sons, Guido N. Lieber, was a Judge Advocate General of the Army after the war.
307. The Manual for Courts Martial is also an executive order issued by or under the same 'authority.' The Lieber code governs primarily those troops of the United States Army in domestic actions. [*Insertion added]
308. Randall's Lincoln the President, Midstream (Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1952), pp. 171-173.
309. Article 1, Section 1, of The Leiber Instructions. [Emphasis added] Available from The Christian Jural Society Press.
310. Baker v. Gordon (1864), 23 Ind. 204. [Emphasis added] In fact no declaration of war was ever issued by "Congress" during Lincoln's War. See Matthews v. McStea, infra.
311. Matthews v. McStea (1875), 91 U.S. 7, 23 L.Ed. 188. [Emphasis added]
312. See, The Dick Act, 1917.
313. The Leiber Instructions, supra, p. 2. See also, Borchard, State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders, 1951.
314. The Leiber Instructions, supra, p. 5.Section II, Article 31. [Emphasis added]
315. Halleck's International Law, p. 456.
316. United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51. [Emphasis added]
317. Young's Civil Government, p. 5, published in 1877 by A. S. Barnes & Co.
318. John Quincy Adams quoted by Thornton, J. Wingate, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, (1860).
319. Cooley, Const. Lim. 206. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Religion," p. 2865.
320. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295. See also Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.
322. The Civil War and Reconstruction, by J.G. Randall, D.C. Heath and Company, publishers, Boston. p. 444.
323. Randall, supra, p. 447.
324. Barker and Commager's Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [*Insertions added.]
325. Randall, supra, p. 446.
326. See, 16 Stat. 419.
327. Grant v. Cooke (1871), 7 D.C. 165.
328. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, by John Bouvier. 3rd Rev., 8th Ed., by Francis Rawle, in 3 Vols., published by William S. Hein Co., Buffalo, New York, 1984. See, Vol. II, "Maxims," p. 2131.
329. See, The Declaration of Independence for the brief version of the argument here. <*Only a Good and Lawful Christian has this power vested in him by Christ. See Mt 16:17-19, 18:18-20; Jn 20:22-23.>
330. Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419. [Emphasis added]
331. Named after general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, who avoided decisive battles, contests, and the like but waged war silently through propaganda.
332. 1 Bish .Crim. Law, (5th ed.) secs. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited. See Stewart v. State, 1 Ohio St. Rep. 66-71. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
333. Report No. 262, House of Representatives, 43d Congress, 1st Session, March 26, 1874. [Emphasis added.]
334. From the Correspondence of General Robert Edward Lee in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney. p. 497-500. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
335. George LaVerne Anderson, Western Attitude toward National Banks, 1873-1874 (mss. article). Emphasis in original.
336. George LaVerne Anderson, The National Banking System, 1865-1875: A Sectional Institution (manuscript for doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Ill., 1933), 111ff. Cited in Randal, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 456-8.
337. The Civil War and Reconstruction, by J.G. Randall, with biblio. D.C. Heath and Co., Boston. p. 458. [Emphasis and *insertion added]
338. Rep. Dan Vorhees (D-Indiana), in the House of Representatives, Mar. 23, 1872.
339. Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 570
340. 14 Stat. 486-487.
341. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. VI, p. 472.
342. Acts of March 2, 23, and July 19, 1867. Spaulding, op. cit., p. 339; also Army and Navy Journal, March 9, 1867.
343. Bernardo and Bacon, American Military Policy (2d ed. published by the Military Service Div. of The Stackpole Company, 1961.), p. 237.
344. Crimes of the Civil War (1868), p. 72-73. [Emphasis and *insertions added]
345. John Sherman in letter to Cincinnati Gazette, Aug. 12, 1861, New York Tribune, Aug. 23, 1861, p. 7.
346. Nicolay and Hay, Works, IX, p. 218.
347. U. S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, par. 14.
348. Charles E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 9. Randall's Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, pp. 37-39.
349. Ibid. , p. 37.
350. 50 U.S.C.A. 552. [These are "camp followers."].
351. Ex parte Milligan (1866), 4 Wall. 2; Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946), 327 U.S. 304.
352. Ex parte Merryman (1861), 17 Fed. Cas. 144, 148 (C.Ct.Md.), No. 9487.
353. Glendon A. Schubert, The Presidency in the Courts (1956, Univ. of Minn. Press; Da Capo Reprints, 1973.), pp. 184-185. Emphasis and insertions added. Thus, the Executive Power overrides and shuts down all civil courts at his will. All civil courts, whether state or federal, sit and serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States; therefore, Lincoln's War has never ended. The civil courts are hostages of the executive power, however it waxes or wanes.
354. James E. Sefton, The United States Army and Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967), p. ix.
355. All political actions interfering with the Christian's prerogative given by God.
356. See Sefton, chapter 5
357. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders 1789-1877 (U.S.G.P.O., 1988), pp. 268-269
358. The Morrill Act.
359. Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 814.
360. Act of June 19, 1934, c. 651, §§ 1, 2, 48 Stat. 1064, 28 U.S.C.A. §§723b, 723c.
361. From a letter by Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice of the United States, with which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court were transmitted to the Attorney General, who, under the Act of June 19, 1934, had the duty of reporting the rules to the Congress. (362)
362. Ex parte Milligan (1866), 4 Wall. 2; Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946), 327 U.S. 304.
363. Rule 85, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
364. Rule 1, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
365. Smith's Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 67-68.
366. Crimes of the Civil War (1868), by Judge Henry Clay Dean, p. 495.
367. Roscoe Pound, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921), pp. 42-54. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
368. See, "Novation," in Bouvier's, supra, pages 2375-78.
369. A Federally mandated Office administered by the State, under the State's Secretary of State in the States.
370. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, (1914), p. 2861.
371. Persona, lit., the mask of the actor…that covered his whole head. Dict. of Latin Synonymes, by Francis Lieber (Lincoln's man) translated from German by Lewis Ramshorn, pub. by Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1854.
See The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Ed., Vol. II, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. It is clear the word applies to those in law whose designation is otherwise unqualified. It applies to a man, woman, or child, but not to one who is designated as a Good and Lawful Christian. It is also connected to human being, person, natural person, and natural man. The Latin derivation means "through" and "sona" is derived from "sonans," sound, i.e., to sound or speak through a mask. See Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), under "person."
372. Mercury, Shorter O.E.D., supra, v. I, pg. 1235. Mercury .. merchandise. A Roman deity, the god of eloquence, skill, trading and thieving, presider over roads, conductor of departed souls to the Lower World, and messenger of the gods.
373. See the 14th Amendment and the various Civil Rights Acts to date.
374. This was done by the simple act of changing one word in The Trading with the Enemy Act (1917), 'without' the United States became'within.' Congress rubber-stamped E.O.'s 2039 and 2040 into law without debate.
375. From a pie poster seen on the wall of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
376. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 413.
377. In re Egan, 5 Blatchford, 321, Federal Case No. 4,303. [Emphasis added]
378. Manual for Courts Martial, United States, 1984, Rules for Courts Martial, 201(f)(1)(B)(I)(b), page II-11.
379. Senate Report No. 93-549, supra. [Emphasis added]
380. Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.
381. Bank Holiday Act of 1933, Executive Order No. 2039.
382. 12 U.S.C.A., Section 95
383. e.g., National Emergencies Act (1976), P.L. 94-412 [H.R. 3884], Sep. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1255.
384. See U.S. Titles and Codes, Vol. I, Table of Contents, Title II, note the asterisk and its meaning at the bottom of the page.
385. Baker vs. City of Milwaukee, 271 Or. 500; 552 P. 3rd 772, at 775.
386. Black's, 6th, supra, page 1319.
387. Black's, 6th, supra, page 1374.
388. Hartford F. Ins. Co., vs. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 175 U.S. 91; Brown vs. Brown, 88 Conn. 42; Hiroshima vs. Bank of Italy, 78 Cal. App. 362; People vs. Herrin, 284 Ill., 368; Smith vs. DuBose, 78 Ga., 413; Smith vs. Railroad Co., 115 Cal. 584. [Emphasis added]
389. 36 CH. Div. 359; Chaffee vs. Farmers' Co-op Elevator Co., 39 N.D. 585.
390. The Institutes of Biblical Law, by Rousas John Rushdoony, a Chalcedon Study with three appendices by Gary North. Published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., (1973) 15th Printing. pp. 4-5.
391. Exodus, 23:8.
392. First Corinthians, 6:1.
393. Erie Railroad v. Thompkins
394. Proverbs 11:15-16.
395. Matthew, 6:34.
396. II Chronicles, 7:14.
397. e.g. the current Codes, State of California as Amended through 1994, Bancroft & Whitney.
398. That is, civilians are those who are residents under Federal law.
399. This is precisely what was said by a County District Attorney to John William in one case.
400. The "law" of Municipal or Traffic Courts is The 1933 War Powers Act as amended.
401. Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 80-81. [Emphasis added]
402. Brown v. J. P. Morgan and Co. (1941), 31 N.Y.S.2d 323, 177 Misc. 626, 635.
403. Shipman's Common Law Pleading (1923), Benjamin J. Shipman, p. 23. [Emphasis added]
404. Bacon, vs. Fed. Res. Bank of San Fran. (D.C.) 289 F. 513 at 515; Whitesides vs. Dreg, 56 Ind. App. 679; Brumleve vs. Cronan, 176 Kentucky 818; Louisville & N.R. Co., vs. Ind. Bd. of Illinois, 282 Ill. 139.
405. Handbook of Common Law Pleading , by Henry Ballantine, Ed. by Benjamin J. Shipman, 3rd. Edition, 1923, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota.
406. Handbook of Common-Law Pleading, by Benjamin J. Shipman, Third Edition, by Henry Winthrop Ballantine, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota. (1923).pp. 25-29.
407. Hayes vs. Shattuck, 21 Cal. 51; Stockdale vs. Buckingham, 11 Iowa 45; Knight vs. Low, 15 Ind. 374; Scott vs. Hull, 14 Ind. 136; York vs. Texas, 137 U.S. 15.
408. Black's, 6th, supra, page 467, under heading "discussion."
409. Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Secs. 4 & 7, "attorney client privilege;" Black s, 3rd, supra under headings 'ward of the court' and 'non compos mentis.'
410. Greer vs. Young, 120 Ill. 184; Willard vs. Zehr, 215 Ill. 148.
411. Pratt vs. Harris, 295 Ill. 504; Decentenial Digest µPleading Section 104(l); Mineral Point R. Co., vs. Keep, 22 Ill. 9; Davidson vs. Watts, 11 Va. 394; µThe Plea to the Jurisdiction, by W. H. Moreland, 23 Va. Law. Reg. N.S., 249.
412. Nispel vs. Western Union Railroad Co., 60 Ill. 311.
413. See Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 453.
414. Right to Privacy, abortion, social security, etc.
415. Birkhimer, supra, page 363, Section 348, 16 Howard P. 190
416. See, Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union, U.S. Government Printing Office.
417. Black's, 3rd, supra, page 963.
418. Black's, 3rd, supra, page 1391, under heading 'power.'
419. The Christian Jural Society News may be found by writing to: Randy Lee, general delivery, Canoga Park Post Office, Canoga Park, California. All words in this location must be spelled as is with no additions.
420. Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 116. [For those interested, Henius' book is available from Randy Lee.]
421. Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 114.
422. People v. Raymond (1868), 34 C. 492. [Insertion added.]
423. Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 120.
424. Frascona, Business Law (1954), pp. 291-292.
425. Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 115.
426. Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 62.
427. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935), 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837,79 L.Ed. 1570.
428. The Christian Jural Society News, the third, fourth, fifth, and ninth Issues, (1996), published by The Christian Jural Society Press, Canoga Park, California.
429. Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 297.
430. Foley v. Leisy Brewing Co., 89 N.W. 230, 231, 116 Iowa 176. [Emphasis added.]
431. Major-Blakeney Co. v. Jenkins (1953), 121 C.A.2d 325, 263 P.2d 655, hear den.; Townsend Pierson, Inc. v. Holly-Coleman Co. (1960), 178 C.A.2d 373, 2 Cal. Rptr. 812.
432. Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", pp. 4-5.
433. Anson, Contracts (8th Ed.), p. 362.
434. Exodus 20:2-3.
435. Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", p. 3.
436. Young's Civil Government, published in 1877 by A. S. Barnes & Co.
437. Field (A. B.) & Co. v. Haven (1918), 36 C.A. 669, 173 P. 108.
438. Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert (1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.
439. Rheem v. Snodgrass, et al. (1858), 2 Grant's Cases 379.
440. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3350.
441. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), Vol. II, p. 610.
442. Deut. 5:19-21.
443. Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), p. 431.
444. Chambers Murray, supra, p. 431.
445. Chambers Murray, supra, pp. 431-432.
446. Chambers Murray, supra, p. 432.
447. Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428. [Insertions added.]
448. Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428. [Insertion added.]
449. Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428.
450. Vance, Insurance (1954), p. 93. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
451. Carson River Lumbering Co. v. Patterson (1867), 33 C. 334.
452. Lord v. Goodall, Nelson & Perkins S. S. Co. (1881), 102 U.S. 541, 26 L.Ed. 224.
453. James 4:13-14.
454. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, 1933 Armistice Day speech in Philadelphia, cited in R. E. McMaster, Wealth for All Religion, Politics and War (1982) pp. 210 211. [Insertions added.]
455. James 4:1-3.
456. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, pp. 551-552.
457. [see Const. U.S.A., Article I, section 8, clauses 1 & 2
458. McCulloch, Dict. of Commerce; Sewell, Banking. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1323-1324. [Emphasis and insertion added.]In other words, unless and until the loan is repaid, the property or works created by use of the loan are property of the lender.
459. Judge, Henry Clay Dean, 1868. [Insertions added.]
460. Vicksburg Daily Whig, January 18, 1860.
461. The Honorable John H. Reagan of Texas, January 15, 1861, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2d session, p. 391.
462. John Adams, Works IV, p. 43. [insertion added.]
463. Ecclesiasticus 10:8. (K.J.V.)
464. Judge, Henry Clay Dean, 1868
465. Connecticut, one of the 13 colonies that supported the Constitution began to adjourn sine die as early as 1853.
466. The election of Senators by the people, did not become a matter of Constitutional law until the 17th Amendment.
467. Charles Darwin's book, On The Origin of Species or, The Survival of Favoured Races, has been a popular justification for lawlessness and racism since its publication in 1857.
468. Second Chronicles 7:14.
469. Second Chronicles 7:19-20.
Return to Christ's Lawful Assembly
|Home||Greetings||Who We Are||Helpful Info||Rest Room||Search||Contact Us|