Thick as Theives part I

THICK AS THIEVES…….
A couple of questions have been asked, the first is this…..

#1. “Ive been thinking and wondering about something and maybe ya,ll can help me to understand???,,,, OK George Washington was a Federalist just as Alexander Hamilton was, and thus a big government guy, so i guess my question would be…. If Washington was still alive and could understand what was happening in 1860/61, Do ya,ll think that he would have been in favor of the southern states seceding from the federal union that he so loved????…….”

#2. Would George Washington have supported his home state of Virginia secession in May of 1861?

We need to begin here by understanding that George Washington was not a “Federalist” but rather a nationalist.

Those who we have been led to believe were federalists were in reality nationalists, and those we have been led to believe were “anti-federalists” were actually federalists.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the Virginia delegates who showed up early at the 1787 Philadelphia convention with a plan (The Virginia plan) for a wholly national government system to replace the wholly federal system under The Articles of Confederation, this plan for a wholly national government was rejected, forcing these nationalists to accept a compromise which resulted in a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially national system creating the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, which has been an abysmal failure resulting in the removal of the federal portion.
The nationalists commandeered the label “Federalists” for themselves leaving the opposition left with the label “Anti-Federalists”, when in fact the “Anti-Federalists” were actually federalists, and those who we have been led to believe were federalists were actually nationalists.
Here is an example of proof……….
In the 1787 U.S. CONstitutional debates #39
James Madison (A nationalists) stated …..

“”But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? ”

What Madison is stating is that those who were opposed to the new U.S. CONstitution …..
(those you have been led to believe were “anti-federalists)
were complaining that the proposed new U.S. CONstitution ought to have preserved the federal form which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign States; but instead they were framing a national government which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.
Now ask yourself…..
Why would those we have been led to believe were “anti-federalists” be complaining that the new CONstitution should have PRESERVED THE FEDERAL FORM?
In reality you had rats, and anti-rats, meaning Rats who advocated ratification of the new proposed CONstitution, and anti-Rats who opposed ratification of the new proposed CONstitution.
One cannot just accept what one has been taught as fact, such who do so, are the Pseudo intellectuals who make fools of themselves when faced with others who are actually educated.
I am currently ill and running a fever, therefore, I will make a second installment to this article to further explain the federal and National systems that were cobbled together to form the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, along with a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington as proof that these men were advocates of BIG government, and centralized power. The self proclaimed “conservative” who exhibit adoration for these framers of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and that CONstitution itself are ignorant fools.

By James Everett, Sui Juris

All rights reserved without prejudice

3 Responses to “Thick as Theives part I”

  1. Lamar Mason says:

    If the federalist form that regarded the states as sovereign was not kept then did the USA have a point in regarding the CSA as illegal? Confused.

    • james says:

      Your question is answered in that our end game is to return to the Articles of Confederation.
      There are a few things to consider here.

      #1. Article XIII of the Articles states in part….
      “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

      The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution altered not only article thirteen, but the entire structure of the Articles. For there to be any alteration allowing for ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution by elected delegates to a convention, or by delegates elected by the people,then there would first be the requirement of altering article thirteen to no longer require the confirmation of any alteration…..
      “by the legislatures of every State.”
      The legislatures of every State did not hold a vote confirming any alteration of article thirteen,let alone the alteration of every article.

      #2. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution begins with the words….
      “We the people” making the 1787/1789 CONstitution a contract between the men then living and of the age of consent. A contract between men, can only be binding on the men who entered into that contract, not binding on generations which had yet to be born ….

      The U.S. CONstitution is written in the language of the American common law.

      “Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable.”

      So, if the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of the law, which were the Articles of Confederation, a treaty between sovereign States, and if it was a contract between “We the people”, then its government itself was illegal, and the fruits of it poison fruit. Can one illegal government deem another illegal government as illegal?

      We recognize these things, and our cause is to return to the articles, and to accomplish this act, we realize that under the rebellion of Lincoln, which resulted in the complete removal of the federal system, that this return to the Articles cannot be achieved, therefore we seek to begin by restoring our 1861 Constitution for The Confederate States of America, which still retains the federal form so that we may utilized prepared amendments to return to the Articles and a wholly federal system, which may then be altered under the requirements of article XIII.

    • james says:

      Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in a missive titled Popular Basis of Political Authority; “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.–It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.”

Leave a Reply