- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


A.W. Mann

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0



Conditions of Slavery in America as Compared to England

In Part 1, I showed that slavery in the South was not as bad as commonly portrayed.  As further proof of this, an impartial witness named Samuel Phillips Day, a special correspondent for the London Morning Herald, observed:  “’On Sunday, June 8, 1861, in Asheville, Kentucky, I took a drive with some friends.  Judge of my surprise . . . when I found almost the entire Negro population abroad; some parading thoroughfares and others riding about in carriages!  They were dressed so showily and so finely and appeared so happy and contented that I was virtually forced to exclaim, Surely these people are not slaves!  The response was, Certainly they are.  Some of the women wore lace shawls and gold watches and looked (only for their color) like London duchesses going to a ball.  The men too were well attired.  I reflected for a moment on the condition of British laborers and London needlewomen . . . . The contrast was too painful to dwell upon . . . . The thought flashed across my mind that there was nothing so very wicked in slavery after all – that it possessed a bright side as well as a dark side.’

“. . . [I]t is doubtful if any Southern plantation owner would have treated his slaves as badly as the average British workingman was treated by his brutal Black Nobility landowners and factory operators.  It was no accident that world Communism, Fabianism, and other desperate remedies were born, not in the slave quarters of the South [U.S.], but in the working class districts of London and Manchester” (Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, Staunton, 1987, p.144).

The British merchant class treated its own laborers far worse than Southern plantation owners treated their negro slaves.  There was no such thing as White privilege in England.

William Dodd writes in his book The Factory System Illustrated (Boston ed.) that “in the year 1846 alone, 10,000 English workers, many of them children, had been mangled and mutilated by machinery or otherwise disabled for life.  They were abandoned and received no compensation of any kind.  Many died of their injuries” (Michael A. Hoffman II, They Were White and They Were Slaves, 2nd ed., Dresden, New York, 1991, p.13).

“Charles Darwin’s uncle, factory owner Josiah Wedgewood, owned a business that worked White children of five years of age in a chemical factory permeated with lead oxide, a deadly poison.  Wedgewood acknowledged that the lead made the children ‘very subject to disease’ but worked them anyway” (Ibid., p.10).

“The English historian William Cobbet stated in 1836, ‘The starving agricultural laborers of southern England are worse off than American negroes.’  When in 1834 English farm workers in Dorset tried to form a union in order to ‘preserve ourselves, our wives and our children from starvation,’ they were shipped into slavery in Australia for this ‘crime.’  The situation of White factory workers was no better.  Robert Owen declared in 1840, ‘The working classes of Great Britain are in a worse condition than any slaves in any country in any period of the world’s history’” (Ibid., p.11).

Dodd writes:  “’Petition after petition has been sent to the two houses of Parliament, to the prime minister, and to the Queen concerning this unfortunate class of British subjects, but without effect.  Had they only been black instead of white, their case would have been taken into consideration long ago’” (Dodd, pp. 25-26).

“The Rev. Charles Edwards Lester, the great-grandson of the Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, . . . stated that if he had a choice between having his children born negro slaves in the South or poor people in England, he would choose the former:  ‘I would sooner see the children of my love born to the heritage of Southern slavery than to see them subjected to the blighting bondage of the poor English operative’s life’ (Lester, The Glory and the Shame of England, Vol. 1, p.viii).

“’John Randolph of Roanoke, traveling in England and Ireland with his black manservant Johnny, wrote to a friend back home:  “Much as I was prepared to see misery in the south of Ireland, I was utterly shocked at the condition of the poor peasantry between Limmerick and Dublin.  Why sir, John never felt so proud of being a Virginia slave.  He looked with horror upon the mud hovels and miserable food of the white slaves, and I had no fear of his running away” ([Marcus] Cunliffe, [Chattel Slavery and Wage Slavery], p.6)’” (Hoffman, pp. 13-14).

While many nonwhites today in America hurl the accusation of “White privilege” in the faces of Whites, they don’t seem to realize that a group of Whites on their own initiative formed their own unique government in this country and then went to war against the most powerful empire of the world at that time to try to set itself free from the British monarchy.  Any “privileges” that any surviving Americans of this war received had been dearly paid for, not given to them on a silver platter simply because they were White.  As we have seen, the fact that they were White, and many were Englishmen, meant absolutely nothing to British royalty, bankers, and merchants.  British subjects in England were allowed to starve or exist in deplorable conditions worse than slavery.

The government that the American colonists formed was designed to give themselves as much autonomy and freedom as possible, and this was done by avoiding giving a centralized government all the power.  A minimum number of laws were imposed because Whites took it upon themselves to live honorably, honestly, and responsibly.  They never expected liberty and freedom and “privilege” without duties and obligations.  Whites who came to America believed that they were capable of self-government (policing themselves rather than others doing it for them) since they were Christian.  “The Anglo-Saxon people have a genius for ruling themselves.  Their laws are the most ancient of modern law.  They extend in unbroken line from Ethelbert, the first Christian king of Kent” (Eustace Mullins, The Rape of Justice, Staunton, 1989, p.443).  Quoting Frederic J. Stimson’s book The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States (1908), under “The Right to Law,” Mullins says:

“’The law required by this general right . . . must be the Common Law of the English people.  That is to say, in origin, the body of their free customs and usage, made by themselves, not by a king, and also, in earliest days, enforced by themselves; and furthermore, it must be the Common Law, not the Roman or Civil Law, nor the Canon or Church Law, nor any supposed Administrative Law, or orders of decrees of the king, or king in Council’” (Ibid., p.441).

Those who claim that Whites are unfairly privileged by all this should take note that:  “For centuries men of our race died on the battlefield, or in prison, or on the gibbet, or under the axe, or were burned alive in order to secure these rights . . .” (Samuel Pettengill, Jefferson: The Forgotten Man, N.Y., 1938, p.120).  Furthermore, if Whites are privileged, it is because they live by a Christian spirit rather than living by the letter of the law in which people who do not have this spirit believe they are free to do as they please within the bounds of the law and no more, and so if those bounds are not downright specific about what one can and cannot do, their philosophy is to “do whatever you can get away with.” 

When unresponsible non-Christians are caught breaking the law, they claim that they are being oppressed or discriminated against, or they have the gall to accuse law-abiding citizens of being “privileged.”  The difference here is that those “privileged” are willing to live by unwritten social and moral habits, ideals, and customs of the community – whereas those who are not willing to abide by anything but the written laws find unwritten laws and customs to be troublesome or “racist.”  So they make it a race issue, which is partly true, but it is about living by a different spirit.

As for slavery being an institution of Whites against blacks, the truth is that “Down to the 1640s, there were many more English slaves in Muslim North Africa than African slaves under English control in the Caribbean. . . Millions [of] European Christians were kidnapped and enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780. . . [M]uslim slave raids [had] continued on European shores for 1,200 years . . . .

“Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves” (“Atlantic Jihad: The Untold Story of White Slavery,” 9/27/17, themuslimissue.wordpress. com).  “More white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas” (Ibid.).

The Hypocrisy of England

Another common misperception that people make is that the upper class in England was White and that their actions represented the will of the British people.  While some of the aristocracy was indeed White, it did not take long before they intermarried with Jews.  The powerful Jewish families in England are heirs to the Venetian oligarchy which infiltrated and subverted England between 1509–1715. The powerful families of the Black Nobility originated in Italy from the Venetian oligarchs, who were of Khazar/Edomite extraction, and spread from there to Germany, Britain, Holland, Switzerland, and finally to England.  The richest and most powerful Jewish families in the Roman Empire lived in northern Italy.  They “earned the title of ‘Black’ nobility from their ruthless lack of scruple.  They employed murder, rape, kidnapping, assassination, robbery, and all manner of deceit on a grand scale, brooking no opposition to attaining their objectives.  These all have immense wealth.  And money is power” (“Revelation 17:12-13 – Part II:  The Black Nobility,” p.2,  Their goal, of course, is to subjugate the entire world into slavery under world government.


Professor Carroll Quigley “side-tracked people by making people think the elite were Anglophiles who wanted the British to rule the world.  Although the elite are partial to the English language as a lingua-franca, in their heart their allegiance is not to Britain but to Satan” (Fritz Springmeier, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, 2nd Ptg., Westminster, Colorado, 1999, p.321).  Needless to say, unlike the Jews, Whites at that time were typically Christian, not Satanists.

The bankers of Amsterdam financed Oliver Cromwell’s rule of England as a Calvinist dictator from 1653-1658.  Following his death and the reign of Charles II and James II, William of Orange, the banker’s choice, became William III.  Cromwell and William were both ardent Calvinists.  With William’s signing of a Declaration of Rights on February 13, 1689, England became a constitutional monarchy.  In 1694, he chartered the Bank of England, a privately-owned central bank (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, pp. 38-40).

When the Dutch William of Orange deposed King James II of England in 1691, the financial headquarters of the Illuminati moved to London.  Thus, England became the center for the Illuminati and is “the mother country of Satanism” (Springmeier, p.376).  The Rothschilds took complete control over England when England defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815.  At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, “the triumphant Masons, led by the banking power of the Rothschilds, dictated their terms, not only to France, but to the other nations of Europe” (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, p.45).  The policies and actions of the English government were therefore not by the will of the English people, and those actions and their net results must not be blamed on Christianity either.  (By the same token, as we shall see,, the policies and actions of the U.S. government today must not be attributed to the will of the White man or credited to Christianity.)  Judaism, Satanism, and Mammon (the banking industry) are no more representative of Christianity than Jews are White.  Universalism and the desire for world government by the Masons should not be confused with the mission of Christianity either. 

Springmeier writes:

“During the 1600-1800 period, each decade saw hundreds of Dutch East India Company ships sailing to Asia” (Springmeier, p.408). Amsterdam between 1590-1740 was the world center of international banking, trade, and shipping.  “The Dutch West India Company was formed in 1621 to colonize the American New World as well as make fortunes.  It also dealt with Africa.  Seven of its principal stockholders (which was a majority) were rich Dutch Jews. . . . The Dutch East and West India Companies were granted monopolies.  The Dutch East India Company . . . lasted from 1602-1799.  They combined the finances and power of the international bankers and oligarchical families.  A proper understanding of the world order today demands that a full historical investigation be done into the role of the British and Dutch trading companies (and the people who controlled these companies) in the development and control of the United States” (Ibid., pp. 408-409).

The Dutch East India Company and the Bank of Amsterdam controlled global slavery (“The Underworld Death Dealing Practices of the Elite . . . ,” 10/25/16, p.11,  Mullins says that the East India Company was the secret government of the British Empire (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, pp. 31-32).

“Pirates which raided the East Indies and the Red Sea were outfitted in what is today New York and Rhode Island. . . . Fletcher, the British colonial governor of New York . . . worked hand-in-hand with the pirates. . . .

“Jamaica was originally given to Columbus’s [Jewish] heirs, and his heirs set Jamaica up as a secret refuge for Jews.  In 1654, . . . . half of the population at that time was Jewish.  The city was the pirate capital of the world . . . The island was run by the pirates and Jewish merchants and was known as ‘the wickedest city in the world’ . . . . From Jamaica, Jews moved all over the Caribbean islands and then often [to] the United States. . . .

“Dutch Jews arrived in the New Netherlands [New York] most likely before 1650 (and for sure by 1654) . . . . During the Napoleonic era Dutch Jews emigrated in large numbers to the New York area. . . . Almost all of the early Dutch Jews became prominent members in the secret societies, such as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.  The Dutch Jewish merchant Moses Hays of New York City introduced the Scottish Rite to America” (Springmeier, p.411).  “. . . [T]he international flag of the Scottish Rite is the United Nations Flag and . . . depicts the nations of the world encircled by the laurel of Apollo. . . Bill Cooper’s web site ( majesty.htm [says]):  ‘You may verify . . . . [that] The Universal flag of Freemasonry is the United Nations Flag’” (Joseph Pede, “What is the nature of the intelligence behind the controlling power structure of the earth?,”  (The Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry is located in the city of London.)


Observations of Rep. Vallandigham

With these facts in mind, let us take a closer look at Lincoln’s “Civil War” from the perspective of a Congressman and lawyer (born in 1820), the son of a Presbyterian minister and a true statesman and patriot, who lived during that time.  His full name was Clement Laird Vallandigham (“Mr. V”).  Mr. V. had firsthand knowledge of what took place in the War Between the States.  Political correctness cannot change what he and others said in the past, although many have not hesitated to try to suppress what people like him said.  Since probably fewer than one American in a million will take the time to read through his speeches, I have summarized what I feel are some of the most important points that he made.  The reader will soon discover that patriots today offer many of the same arguments concerning our tyrannical government, so what he said is relevant to our generation.

The Hon. J. W. Wall, a New Jersey Senator, described Mr. V. as follows in a letter to the New York World (Oct. 1862):  “There is no more patriotic heart beats in any man’s bosom than his.  No man, either in Congress or out of it, has exhibited more wisdom and remarkable forecast in reference to this war and its results.  No man has been more disinterested, devoted himself to his country’s best interests, and labored more assiduously to stay the disastrous legislation of the last Congress, which he declared was pregnant with manifold mischief to the country. . . He saw the ‘end from the beginning,’ and predicted the present ruined, disastrous condition of the country.”

One newspaper said that Mr. V. was the most popular man in the State of Ohio.  He was also indorsed by people of Indiana and Pennsylvania.  He was so popular that a huge crowd listened to him speak outside for three full hours in stormy and very unpleasant weather.  In another meeting to 10,000 people, the largest political meeting in Newark, Ohio since 1840, he referred to the foul murder of the editor of a Dayton newspaper by an Abolitionist.  He “characterized the murder . . . as one of the sad results of the Gospel of Hate which has been for years persistently preached by so many of the clergy and diffused and instilled by the Abolition press of the land.”  “His rebuke at our hypocritical opponents, who profess to be sure pure Christians and moralists, was most scathing. . . The Abolitionists had preached and practiced the Gospel of Hate – hate toward everybody except the negro, and even with respect to him, they were more actuated by hate for the negro’s master than by love for the negro.” 

In a speech made at a Democratic meeting in Dayton, Ohio on October 29, 1855, Mr. V. made the following points:

1.     The colonies were each separate and independent of one another as foreign states.  “A common subjection to the crown of Great Britain gave the first notion of a common Federal Government; and the aggressions of that crown and of Parliament, compelling civil war, forced our fathers into a union and articles of confederation.  The Constitution of ’89 extended the powers and the efficiency, but did not alter the nature of the General Government.  That instrument . . . was framed by delegates appointed not by the old Congress, but by the States, as sovereign and independent communities.”

2.     New England (Massachusetts) enacted the first fugitive slave law in America in 1643.  This included White slaves from England.

3.     On July 4, 1776, every colony was a slave State.

4.     The Constitution “gave no right to Congress to debate or to legislate concerning slavery in the States or Territories, except for the interdiction of the slave-trade and the extradition of fugitive slaves [see Art. IV, Sec. 2-1(3) of the Constitution].”  The Articles of Confederation of 1778 considered slavery to be wholly a domestic and local concern.

5.     “In 1787, every State, except perhaps Massachusetts, tolerated slavery either absolutely or conditionally.”  (Massachusetts passed a resolution to secede in the winter of 1847, proving that the States always considered secession to be a legal option.)

6.     “The number of African slaves imported into the port of Charleston, S.C. . . . in the . . . last year of the slave-trade [1807] – was 39,075.  These were consigned to 91 British subjects, 88 citizens of New England, 10 French subjects, and only 13 citizens of Charleston.”

7.     “The earliest and most resolute enemies to slavery were Southern men.  But climate had fastened the institution upon them; and they found no way to strike it down.  From the beginning, indeed, the Southern colonies especially had resisted the introduction of African slaves . . . The Continental Congress soon after, on the 6th of April 1776, three months earlier than the Declaration of Independence, resolved that no more slaves ought to be imported into the Thirteen Colonies.”

8.     “The men of that day and generation . . . were content to leave the question of slavery just where it belonged. . . . They were content to deal with political questions and to leave cases of conscience to the Church and the schools, or to the individual man.”

9.     By 1820, “slavery as a system had been abolished by law or disuse, quietly and without agitation in every State north of Mason and Dixon’s line . . . . The slave-trade had been declared piracy, punishable with death.”

10.  When Missouri applied for admission to the Union, it simply wanted slavery to continue as it had existed from the beginning in its territory, but the Northern States rejected this.  “This was the beginning . . . of that line of paltry and halting compromises . . .”

11.  England began trafficking in slaves 300 years ago, which lasted until 1808.  But with the loss of her American colonies and their prohibition of the slave trade, England now began to engage in philanthropy and became the “great apostle of African liberty.”  But, while convicting the world of the “sinfulness of negro slavery,” she ignored the “political rights of millions of her own white subjects.”  Although there was no involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime in England, poverty was a crime punishable by “the worst form of slavery, or by starvation and death.”  In England in 1834 by an act of Parliament, she “robbed . . . one hundred millions of dollars from the wronged and beggared peasantry of Ireland, from the enslaved and oppressed millions of India, [and] from the starving, overwrought, mendicant carcasses of the white slaves of her own soil . . .” In other words, she reduced her subjects to poverty and then punished them for being poor.

12.  The “Missouri Question” “had been settled by compromise [and saved the Union from dissolving in 1820], and we had quiet and peace again for 15 years till the systematic and organized anti-slavery agitation began in 1835, at which time it was so bitterly denounced by President Jackson.  But it continued gaining strength every year . . .” “Aided by British gold, encouraged by British sympathy, the agitation [for the emancipation of slaves] began here in 1835; and . . . within six months, the whole Union was convulsed. . . . Abolition societies . . . poured in a flood of petitions, praying Congress to take action upon the subject of slavery.”  “And accordingly, in May 1835, the American Anti-slavery Society was established in New York, its object being the immediate and unconditional abolition of negro slavery in the United States.” 

13.  The evil lay in the pernicious error of self-righteousness that men of the North by some “higher law” of conscience had the right to legislate for the abolition of slavery.  “More than half the present generation in the North have ceased to look upon Southern men as brethren.  Taught to hate, first, the institutions of the South, they have . . . by easy gradations transferred that hatred to her citizens.”  “Meantime, public opinion has wholly, radically changed in the South.  The South has ceased to denounce . . . [or] condemn slavery . . .” One can learn from the history of ancient Greece “how internal dissension and discord may prostrate a state in the full vigor of its manhood . . .”  “. . . [B]e assured [that] there is no medicine nor surgery which can heal it [i.e. the sentiment for disunion between the North and the South] without the utmost disclosure and knowledge of the true cause and character and extent of the disease.”

14.  In Ohio, the Democratic State Convention of January 8, 1840 resolved that they had no right to interfere with slavery in another State and denounced the Abolition societies as being “hostile to the spirit of the Constitution and destructive to the harmony of the Union.”  “Fifteen years ago there were Secession disunionists South, just as there were Abolition disunionists in the North and West. . . . [F]or years no disunionist in the South could be elected to any office. . . Abolitionism steadily increased in position and power till the Senate began to be filled with Abolitionists . . . and the House of Representatives also; . . . and finally a President was elected by a sectional anti-slavery party . . .”  “In the very midst of secession, . . . if the ‘Crittenden propositions’ of December 1860 had been adopted, secession would have perished.”  But “’the only difficulty in the way of our amicable adjustment is . . . the Republican Party.’”  The Republicans would not even consider Crittenden’s resolution, but met it with contempt and sneers. 

15.  “. . . [T]he people of Ohio have no more right to intermeddle [in the institutions of other States] than with the laws or form of government in Russia.  Slavery in the South is to them as polygamy in the Turkish Empire . . . [T]hey have no more right to interfere with . . . the continuance of slavery in Virginia than for its existence in Persia. . . The converse of this proposition is sheer . . . Federalism – just the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton who in the convention of ’87 would have made the States wholly subordinate to the General Government – mere adjuncts – ‘corporations for local purposes’ . . . It is a fundamental principle . . . that . . . each particular State, county, township, city, and village shall be committed as far as possible [to] the exclusive regulation of their more immediate and local affairs.  In other words, that power whenever it is practicable shall be diffused to the utmost and never centralized beyond urgent necessity.  Again, the only limitation prescribed in the Constitution for the fitness of a State for fellowship with us is that such State shall establish a ‘republican’ or representative form of government.  Now it is too late to allege at this day, and quite too absurd, that the existence of the domestic institution of slavery in a State makes its form of government anti-republican and therefore unconstitutional.”

16.  For one State to pharisaically assume superiority over another State, presuming to be the “keeper of the conscience and custodian of the morals of the people” and “ascending into the judgment-seat of the Almighty” is the height of arrogance.  “. . . I am resolved only to look upon slavery outside of Ohio just as the founders of the Constitution and Union regarded it.  It is no concern of mine . . . nor of yours, Abolitionist.  Neither of us will attain heaven by denunciations of slavery; nor shall we . . . be cast into hell for the sin of others who may hold slaves.”  “Talk not to me about humanity and benevolence    . . . Are there no objects of charity in your own midst – no poor, sick, no lame, no halt, no blind, no widows and orphans – to whose necessities you may administer, and thus find vent for that abounding river of humanity which wells up and flows out from the fountain of your hearts?”

Here I would add what Jubal Early (1816-1894) said in his book The Heritage of the South.  Had the Northern states wanted to abolish slavery or not be allied to states which tolerated slavery, they should have refused to ratify the Constitution.  Having ratified it, they became pledged to “respect the institutions, rights, and property of the other states . . . not only in the capacity of states, but . . . to compel their citizens to respect and abide by them [the compromises and guarantees of the Constitution].”  This meant “abstaining from all violent interference and . . . all agitation or incitement to others to do wrong, by disturbing the peace, property, or rights of other states and the citizens thereof.  The Constitution did not make the general government censors over the morals or domestic institutions of the several states, nor did it make the states or the citizens thereof censors of the moral or domestic institutions of each other.  It was merely a compact formed between sovereign states for the common defense and protection of each other in their rights and liberties as they existed before its formation” (pp. 60-61).

That the issue of slavery was a decision that should have been left up to each State is confirmed by the fact that the Constitution of the State of Idaho today outlaws polygamy forever in its State.  Same sex marriages are not recognized as being valid in the Constitution of Nebraska (Sec. I-29).  As much as some Americans would like to impose their morals on everyone, the power of making such decisions should not be placed in the hands of just one man or group (such as Congress or the Supreme Court).  Mullins says that the Supreme Court “is geared to handle only the pleadings of special interests. . . It is a waste of time and money for an individual to prepare and submit a brief to the Supreme Court” (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, p.8).

Here I will also interject some other important points that Mullins makes:

The abolitionists . . . also worked desperately to forestall the peaceful emancipation movement in the South; the gradual freeing of the slaves, which had been led by Thomas Jefferson, had received widespread approbation among the plantation owners.  They welcomed emancipation because they had come face to face with the economic reality which has made a shambles of the Communist empire, that without incentives and the promise of ultimate gain, few people were willing to do more than the absolute minimum of labor to survive.  Economic growth was impossible in this situation.  Emancipation was not merely a humanitarian measure; it was welcomed by the plantation owners because they faced ruin due to the daily demands of maintaining their increasing slave populations.  Thomas Jefferson was an outstanding example; despite his brilliant career, he died bankrupt.  He tried crop after crop in desperate attempts to make Monticello a profitable enterprise; in every case, he was defeated by the mounting expenses of caring for his slaves” (Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, pp. 149-150, emphasis added).

What most people forget is that the slaves married and had children, all of whom the plantation owners had to support, in both good times and bad.  Thus, if the productivity of the plantation did not increase with the number of slaves, the owner could go bankrupt.  To avoid going bankrupt, it was often more economical for the owner to rent out his slaves to others or set them free and let them take care of themselves.

Mullins continues:

“The tragic Civil War . . . actually began in 1859 with the invasion of the South by the homicidal maniac [and Freemason], John Brown.  The abolitionists had already spent millions of dollars to promote slave rebellions in the South, but this expensive propaganda had very little effect.  As Day and other observers had reported, the slaves were leading very comfortable lives.  After this tactic failed, it became obvious to the conspirators that an actual military invasion was the only solution to their campaign.  The merchant bankers of New England, who were directly controlled by the Rothschilds, were now instructed to finance a military attack against the South.  This instrumentality was the already well-known terrorist, John Brown.  He was financed by a group famed as ‘the Secret Six,’ which was composed of ‘Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Rev. Theodore Parker, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe . . . , Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, George Luther Stearns, and Gerrit Smith.  Smith had been John Brown’s first financial angel.  He was the son of the business partner of John Jacob Astor [who was of Jewish blood] (East India Company, the opium trade, and British Intelligence) . . . Smith was the largest landowner in the State of New York, holding a million acres . . . Smith’s total contribution to John Brown’s military raids and other radical causes came to more than eight million dollars, a tremendous sum in those days.  Rev. Theodore Parker . . . . was the principal organizer of the Secret Six to finance John Brown’s raid” (Ibid., pp. 150-151, emphasis added).

The following are portions of a speech Mr. V. delivered in the House of Representatives on July 10, 1861:

1.     Lincoln’s inaugural address was unbecoming of an American President and American statesman – “with the forked tongue and crooked counsel of the New York politician, leaving 30 millions of people in doubt whether it meant peace or war.”

2.     Although Lincoln claimed that he wanted to save the Union, prior to the election his supporters taunted and sneered at the Democrats for wanting to “Save the Union.”  But after the election, these Republican Abolitionists switched tactics and called the Democrats “traitors” and “secessionists.”  Instead of volunteering to fight on the battlefield against the South, the “brave” Abolitionists chose to stay at home to fight against unarmed Democrats.

3.     Americans believed that secession was partial and would only be temporary, and so “they cordially indorsed, also, the proposed evacuation of Sumter and the other forts and public property within the seceded States.”  However, the easterners supported “the subjugation of the South and the closing up of her ports – first by force in war and afterward by tariff laws in peace.”

4.     Lincoln did not call Congress into session to allow the voice of the people to be heard concerning the South, “the most momentous question ever presented to any government.  The entire responsibility of the whole work was boldly assumed by the Executive, and all the powers required for the purposes in hand were boldly usurped from either the States or the people or from the legislative department; while the voice of the judiciary, that last refuge and hope of liberty, was turned away from with contempt.

“. . . [T]he right of blockade . . . is a belligerent right, incident to a state of war, and it cannot be exercised until war has been declared or recognized; and Congress alone can declare or recognize war.  But Congress had not declared or recognized war.  On the contrary, they had but a little while before expressly refused to declare it or to arm the President with the power to make it.”

5.     Although Congress in the previous five years had repeatedly refused to increase the size of the army, Lincoln increased it by 25,000 men, increased the navy by 18,000 men, and called for volunteers numbering 42,000 men.  In addition to this usurpation of the power delegated to Congress, Lincoln then asked Congress “to support the army which he has thus raised, to ratify his usurpations by a law ex post facto, and thus to make ourselves parties to our own degradation and to his infractions of the Constitution.”  Having usurped the most dangerous power, the power to declare war, usurping the private rights of the people was easy.  Lincoln “repeatedly and flagrantly violated” the Constitution and trampled public liberty and private right under foot.  “The privacy of the telegraph was invaded in the search after treason and traitors . . .”  It wasn’t long before a private citizen of Maryland was seized in his own house in the middle of the night by a band of armed soldiers and marched off to a military fortress.  And when Supreme Court Justice Taney, who had administered the oath to Lincoln to support the Constitution, issued a writ of habeas corpus for the prisoner, the officer in command by the authority of the President suspended the writ.  The prisoner was denied information of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or confronted by witnesses.  “And yet after all this, he [Lincoln] coolly comes before this House and the Senate and the country and pleads that he is only preserving and protecting the Constitution; and demands and expects of this House and of the Senate and the country their thanks for his usurpations . . .” Although owing all his power to the press and the ballot, Lincoln now wanted to play the tyrant and abolish freedom of the press.  “As to the pretense . . . that the President has the Constitutional right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, I will not waste time in arguing it. . . It is a legislative power; it is found only in the legislative article; it belongs to Congress only to do it. . . General Jackson disobeyed it and was reprimanded by James Madison; but no President, nobody but Congress, ever before assumed the right to suspend it. . . . The Constitution cannot be preserved by violating it. . . . And yet, if indeed this pretext of necessity be well-founded, then let me say that a cause which demands the sacrifice of the Constitution and of the dearest securities of property, liberty, and life cannot be just; at least, it is not worth the sacrifice.”

6.     “. . . I am obliged to pass by, for want of time, other grave and dangerous infractions and usurpations of the President since the 4th of March.  I only allude casually to the quartering of soldiers in private houses without the consent of the owners . . . ; to the subversion in a part at least of Maryland of her own State Government and of the authorities under it; to the censorship over the telegraph, and the infringement repeatedly in one or more of the States, of the right of the people to keep and to bear arms for their defense. . . [T]he power and rights of the States and the people and of their Representatives have been usurped . . . [T]he right of petition will follow next . . . ; the freedom of the press will soon fall after it . . . Freedom of religion will yield too . . . Meantime national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditures, gigantic and stupendous peculation, anarchy first and a strong government afterward – no more States lines, no more State governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism must all follow in the history of the future as in the history of the past . . .”

In a letter Mr. V. wrote on May 13, 1861, he stated that Lincoln’s “audacious usurpation . . . deserves impeachment . . .”  “A public debt of hundreds of millions weighing us and our posterity down for generations we cannot escape.  Fortunate shall we be if we escape with our liberties.  Indeed, it is no longer so much a question of war with the South as whether we ourselves are to have constitutions and a Republican form of government hereafter in the North and West.”  Mr. V. also condemned financial interests that were profiting from the war.

Despite threats by the Abolitionists, Mr. V. gave a speech at Dayton on August 2, 1862. 

1.     Quoting the “Declaration of Rights” of Massachusetts (1780), he said:  “No person can, in any case, be subjected to law martial, or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, (except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service) but by authority of the Legislature.” 

2.     Quoting the Virginia “Bill of Rights” of 1776, written by Jefferson, he said:  In all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” “The Constitution is broad enough and strong enough for any emergency.”  “The President professes to think that the Union can be restored by arms.  I do not.  A Union founded on consent can never be cemented by force.” 

3.     I abhor and denounce the monstrous doctrine . . . that the Constitution is suspended in time of war; or that the powers under it are enlarged; or, at least, that there is a ‘war power’ above and greater than the Constitution . . . [T]hat instrument was made for war as well as peace. . . . The ‘tyrant’s plea’ of necessity is false.”  “Yet you have been told that we shall not be allowed to enjoy these rights – that ‘executive orders’ shall be issued against us . . .” Being “at the mercy of mere power, military power . . . is despotism, absolute, unmixed, cruel despotism . . .” “. . . [B]e assured – that when . . . [the] great day of account does come, by the measure you have meted out to us, by that measure shall it be meted out to you again.”

4.     “. . . [T]here is another and different, yet most desperate rebellion to be dealt with – the Abolition Rebellion . . . It too must be put down . . . if we would save the country.  In my judgment, you will never suppress the armed Secession Rebellion till you have crushed under foot the pestilent Abolition Rebellion first.”

5.     Who is an Abolitionist?  Whoever is for indiscriminate confiscation in order to strike at slavery . . . Whoever is for emancipation and purchase of the slaves of the border States and the pretended colonization of them abroad, but really their importation North and West to compete with our own white labor . . . Whoever would reduce the southern States to Territories in order to strike down slavery in them by Federal power . . . Whoever is in favor of arming the slaves or of declaring slavery abolished by executive or military proclamation . . . And finally, whoever is for converting the war, directly or indirectly, into a crusade for the abolition of slavery is an Abolitionist of the worst sort  . . . . Whoever feels it his duty to fight armed rebels at the South, let him enlist at once; let him not buy up a substitute [the government allowed people to stay at home if they paid $300; most people were too poor to come up with that kind of money], but go himself.  Whoever remains at home, it is his duty to join with me against Abolition rebels in our midst.  This is loyalty; this is fidelity to the Union.”

On November 26, Mr. V. spoke to a crowd of not less than 4,000 people, following a speech by Hon. Wm. Allen, for a total of four hours on a cold, unpleasant day.  Not satisfied, the crowd made him speak again in the evening for another two hours.  This was the man whom the Abolitionists called a “traitor.”

No speech ever heard in Congress made a deeper impression on the minds of the American people than the one delivered by Mr. V. on the 14th of January, 1863.   The Columbus Crisis, edited by Governor Medary, said:  “This is no ordinary speech – made by no ordinary man, and under circumstances the most remarkable which ever overtook any nation or people.”  Even one of his malignant political opponents, the Washington correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette stated:  “Even the reporters in the galleries wake up; the ladies cease their eternal chattering and lean forward to catch every word.”  The Republicans listened with respectful attention.

The following are some of the highlights of this speech:

“On the 4th of March he [Lincoln] was inaugurated, surrounded by soldiery; and, swearing to support the Constitution of the United States, announced in the same breath that the platform of his party should be the law unto him.  From that moment all hope of peaceable adjustment fled.  But for a little while, either with unsteadfast sincerity or in premeditated deceit, the policy of peace was proclaimed, even to the evacuation of Sumter and the other Federal forts and arsenals in the seceded States.  Why that policy was suddenly abandoned, time will fully disclose.  But just after the spring elections, and the secret meeting in this city of the Governors of several northern and western States, a fleet carrying a large number of men was sent down ostensibly to provision Fort Sumter.  The authorities of South Carolina eagerly accepted the challenge . . . It was Sunday, the 14th of April, 1861; and that day the President, in fatal haste, and without the advice or consent of Congress, issued his proclamation . . . calling out 75,000 militia for three months to repossess the forts, places and property seized from the United States, and commanding the insurgents to disperse in twenty days. . . Virginia forthwith seceded.  North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas followed . . . .

“In the North and West, too, the storm raged with the fury of a hurricane. . . . Social relations were dissolved; friendships broken up; the ties of family and kindred snapped asunder. . . . The gospel of love perished; hate sat enthroned, and the sacrifices of blood smoked upon every altar.

“. . . Constitutional limitation was broken down . . . [and] the Attorney-General . . . proclaimed . . . the maxim of Roman servility:  Whatever pleases the President, that is law!  Prisoners of State were then first heard of here . . . [I]nformers multiplied; spies now first appeared in America.  The right to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy, was usurped by the Executive . . . .

“On the 4th of July, Congress met, not to seek peace; not to rebuke usurpation nor to restrain power; not certainly to deliberate; not even to legislate, but to register and ratify the edicts and acts of the Executive . . . . Opposition was silenced by the fierce clamor of ‘disloyalty.’  All business not of war was voted out of order.”

“The spirit of non-intervention is the very spirit of peace and concord. . . . The spirit of intervention assumed the form of abolitionism because slavery was odious in name, and by association to the northern mind, and because it was that which most obviously marks the different civilizations of the two sections. . . . I believed from the first that it was the purpose of some of the apostles of that doctrine to force a collision between the North and the South, either to bring about a separation, or to find a vain but bloody pretext for abolishing slavery in the States.  In any event, I knew . . . that the end was certain collision and death to the Union.”

The inevitable result of the Abolitionists’ policies was to change “our present democratical form of government into an imperial despotism.”  “Our southern brethren were to be whipped back into love and fellowship at the point of the bayonet.  O, monstrous delusion! . . . Was the Union thus made?  Was it ever thus preserved? . . . [H]istory will record that after nearly 6,000 years . . . it was reserved to American statesmanship in the 19th century . . . to try . . . creating love by force and developing fraternal affection by war!”

“You took control of a country young, vigorous, and inexhaustible in wealth and resources, and of a Government almost free from public debt, and whose good faith had never been tarnished. . . . The whole wealth of the country, to the last dollar, lay at your feet. . . . [S]ince the 4th of July, 1861, this House has appropriated $2,017,864,000, almost every dollar without debate, and without a recorded vote [spending an average of three million dollars a day]. . . And to support all this stupendous outlay and indebtedness, a system of taxation, direct and indirect, has been inaugurated, the most onerous and unjust ever imposed upon any but a conquered people.”      “. . . [Y]et after nearly two years of more vigorous prosecution of war than ever recorded in history; after more skirmishes, combats and battles than Alexander, Caesar, or the first Napoleon ever fought in any five years of their military career, you have utterly, signally, disastrously . . . failed to subdue ten millions of ‘rebels’ whom you had taught the people of the North and West not only to hate, but to despise. . . . And yet, they were to be utterly conquered and subdued in six weeks or three months! . . . . But money you have expended without limit, and blood poured out like water.  Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers, these are your trophies.       . . . The war for the Union is . . . a most bloody and costly failure.”

“Neither will I be stopped by that other cry of mingled fanaticism and hypocrisy about the sin and barbarism of African slavery. . . I see more of barbarism and sin a thousand times in the continuance of this war, the dissolution of the Union, the breaking up of this Government, and the enslavement of the white race by debt and taxes and arbitrary power. . . I accept the language and intent of the Indiana resolution to the full – ‘that in considering terms of settlement, we will look only to the welfare, peace, and safety of the white race without reference to the effect that settlement may have upon the condition of the African.’  And when we have done this, my word for it, the safety, peace, and welfare of the African will have been best secured. . . [T]here is fifty-fold less of anti-slavery sentiment today in the West than there was two years ago; and if this war be continued, there will be still less a year hence.  The people there begin at last to comprehend that domestic slavery in the South is a question not of morals, or religion, or humanity, but a form of labor, perfectly compatible with the dignity of free white labor in the same community . . . They have learned, or begun to learn, that the evils of the system affect the master alone or the community and State in which it exists; and that we of the free States partake of all the material benefits of the institution, unmixed with any part of its mischief.  They believe also . . . that the condition of subordination as established in the South is far better every way for the negro than the hard servitude of poverty, degradation, and crime to which he is subjected in the free States.”

“Why this civil war? . . . Not from slavery . . . but from sectionalism, always and everywhere a disintegrating principle.  Sectional jealousy and hate . . . exist between families, communities, towns, cities, counties, and States; and if not repressed would dissolve all society and government . . . Sectionalism East many years ago saw the South and West united by the ties of geographical position, migration, intermarriage, and interest, and thus strong enough to control the power and policy of the Union.  It found us divided only by different forms of labor and with consummate but most guilty sagacity it seized upon the question of slavery as the surest and most powerful instrumentality by which to separate the West from the South and bind her wholly to the North.  Encouraged every way from abroad by those who were jealous of our prosperity and greatness, and who knew the secret of our strength, it proclaimed the ‘irrepressible conflict’ between slave labor and free labor. . . . It organized a sectional anti-slavery party and thus drew to its aid as well political ambition and interest as fanaticism; and after twenty five years of incessant and vehement agitation, it obtained possession finally . . . of the Federal Government and of every State government North and West.  And today we are in the midst of the greatest, most cruel, most destructive civil war ever waged.”

“. . . [L]et New England heed, else she and the whole East too, in their struggle for power may learn yet from the West the same lesson which civil war taught to Rome . . . The people of the West demand peace, and they begin to more than suspect that New England is in the way. . . [P]assengers and crew are now almost ready to propitiate the waves by throwing the ill-omened prophet overboard [the fanatical conservative, abolitionist, Puritan element in the New England States].”

“Whoever hates negro slavery more than he loves the Union must demand separation at last.    . . . The sole question today is between the Union with slavery or final disunion, and, I think, anarchy and despotism.  I am for the Union.  It was good enough for my fathers.  It is good enough for us and our children after us.

Abolitionists have found out, to their infinite surprise and disgust, that the slave is not ‘panting for freedom’ nor pining in silent but revengeful grief over cruelty and oppression inflicted upon him, but happy, contented, attached deeply to his master, and unwilling – at least not eager – to accept the precious boon of freedom which they have proffered him.”

“Well did Hamilton remark that ‘arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny’ . . .”

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people [Art. X of the Bill of Rights].’  And yet, under the monstrous doctrine [of Lincoln], . . . in war the Constitution is suspended and . . . the President as commander-in-chief, not of the military forces only, but of the whole people of the United States, may under ‘the war power’ do whatever he shall think necessary and proper to be done in any State or part of any State, however remote from the scene of warfare, every right of the people is violated or threatened, and every power of the States usurped.  Their last bulwark, the militia, belonging solely to the States, when not called as such into the actual service of the United States, you now deliberately propose . . . to sweep away and to constitute the President supreme military dictator with a standing army of three millions and more at his command.”

How little did Hamilton foresee that the Government would “attempt to seize the whole militia of the Union and convert them into a standing army, indefinite as to the time of its service, and for the very purpose of not only beating down State sovereignties, but of abolishing even the domestic and social institutions of the States.

“. . . The men who framed that instrument [the Constitution] made it both for war and peace.  . . . Confine . . . yourselves within these limits and the rising storm of popular discontent will be hushed.”

“. . . [T]he writ [of habeas corpus] can be suspended only where the rebellion or invasion exists – in States or parts of States alone where the enemy, foreign or domestic, is found in arms . . . Outside of these conditions, Congress has no more authority to suspend the writ than the President . . . . [S]uspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not authorize arrests except upon sworn warrant, charging some offense known to the law and dangerous to the public safety. . . The suspension only denies release upon bail or a discharge without trial to parties thus arrested.  It suspends no other right or privilege under the Constitution – certainly not the right to a speedy public trial by jury in a civil Court. . . . And yet . . . it has been assumed that a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is a suspension of the entire Constitution and of all laws, so far as the personal rights of the citizen are concerned . . .”

Mr. V’s speech lasted for about two hours.

In response to an Ohio military commander’s order on March 17, 1863 denying the public the right to bear arms, Mr. V. responded that that order only applied to those in military service since they alone were under the commander’s authority.  Further, Mr. V. said that he held a general order also – an order binding on all military men and all civilians alike – on colonels and generals and commanders-in-chief – State and Federal. . . ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’  By order of the States and people of the United States.  George Washington, commanding. . . . But I have another ‘order’ yet.  The people have a right to bear arms for their defense and security, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power’ . . . That . . . is General Order No. 2 – the Constitution of Ohio, by order of the people of Ohio. . . . And though the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, the writs of replevin and injunction cannot be.”

Mullins adds:

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted by martial law, and the military occupation of the Southern states did not end until 1877 (Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, p.163).  Therefore, “if these amendments were and are illegal, having been enacted under martial law, all of the subsequent amendments to the Constitution are also invalid since they not only are not numbered correctly, but they also must be considered as having been enacted according to the provisions of these three amendments, which changed the requirements for citizenship and voting rights!” (Ibid., p.165).  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment directed all its prohibitions against the states and none toward the Federal Government.  Section 3 disfranchised White Southerners, which was an ex post facto law prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution (Affirmative Action is also an ex post facto law for the purpose of punishing and exterminating all of the Zionists’ potential enemies.  The Genocide Convention, ratified by the American Bar Association in 1976, states clearly that genocide is an intent to destroy any group or single member of a group by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part and impose measures intended to prevent births within the group).  Secretary of State William Seward proclaimed that the 14th Amendment had been ratified on July 28, 1868, although it is well-known among lawyers and judges that he lied.

It is a fact of law that legislation enacted during periods of martial law is valid only during the period for which martial law is declared and sustained” (Ibid., p.169).  When the troops were withdrawn, these amendments ceased to have legal status (in 1877) (Ibid., p.171, emphasis added).

Mr. V. warned:  “. . . Try every question of law in your Courts and every question of politics before the people and through the ballot-box; maintain your Constitutional civil rights at all hazards against military usurpation.  Let there be no resistance to law, but meet and repel all mobs and mob violence by force and arms on the spot.”

Finally, Major General Ambrose Burnside, who hadn’t done so well in battle against Lee, threw down the gauntlet out of frustration in April and issued Order No. 38 which threatened death or banishment to anyone committing treason.  “Declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed.”  Mr. V’s reaction to this Order was to ridicule the President’s war policy, and concerning Order No. 38 he said he “despised it, spit upon it, [and] trampled it under his feet.”  A few weeks later, “At three o’clock . . . Tuesday [morning], May 5th [1863], Mr. Vallandigham was arrested – 150 soldiers being sent up from Cincinnati for that purpose.”  The time it took for the arrest and placing him on a special train was only 30 minutes since the operation was well-planned.  He was taken to a prison in Cincinnati.  When the arrest was announced to the public, “the indignation of the people was deep and terrible.”  His enraged supporters burned down the offices of the Dayton Journal, the Republican rival to the Democrat newspaper.  Dayton remained in chaos until martial law restored order three days later.

Although Mr. V. refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court the following day, the judge proceeded anyway.  When he refused to plead, the President of the Court directed the plea of “Not Guilty” to be entered on the record.  As one who was knowledgeable about the law, Mr. V. objected:

“. . . I protest that the [military] Commission has no authority to try me; I am neither in the land or naval forces of the United States or in the militia in actual service of the United States and am not therefore triable by such a Court, but am amenable only to the Judicial Courts of the land.”

One of the charges made against him was his resolve “to do what he could to defeat the attempts now being made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our free Government.”

On May 9, a writ of habeas corpus was submitted, and Ohio Senator George Pugh made “a most thorough and forcible presentation of the legal reasons why the writ should issue.”  The Court reserved its decision until the 16th, at which time the writ was refused.  Mr. V. was found guilty and sentenced to be held prisoner at Fort Warren in Boston Harbor for the duration of the war.  However, after six days, Lincoln changed the sentence to being transported south to the “rebels.”  The Southern Colonel reluctantly consented to receive him.

On June 2, Mr. V. was sent to Wilmington, North Carolina by President Davis and was briefly put under guard as an “alien enemy.”  Mr. V. then went to Richmond and was allowed to leave by boat to Bermuda and then to Canada.  From there he declared himself a candidate for governor of Ohio and actually won the Democratic nomination in absentia.  However, he lost the gubernatorial election to a pro-Union War Democrat.  His deportation prompted Edward Hale to write the short story, “The Man Without a Country.”

Meanwhile, since the Northern armies were running short of men, Lincoln persuaded Congress to schedule a draft in July of 1863.  Mr. V. continued to be relentless in his attacks against Lincoln and the war from Canada and even encouraged the soldiers of the North to desert.

State Sovereignty and States’ Rights

Because of their lack of knowledge regarding law, history, and government, many Americans scoff at the idea of States’ Rights, particularly since this was the major issue raised by Southerners.  However, Pettengill writes:  “’This country was organized on the theory, and has grown and prospered under a system of independent sovereign states, with exclusive authority in many fields and with independent taxing power . . .’” (Pettengill, p.76, emphasis added).  In checking some of the State Constitutions, Montana seems to be one of the only States that specifically states that it is sovereign.  Article II, Section 2 says:  The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state.”

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the natural tendency of a central government to abuse its powers.  They established a government in which legitimate authority rested with the people at the local level.  “. . . [I]t was proclaimed that ‘these Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.’  Free and independent . . . of every one, present or future, except those to whom they voluntarily gave power or allegiance” (Pettengill, p.112). “Every separation of power was intended by our fathers to prevent the abuse of power” (Ibid., p.109).  If any corrections needed to be made in the law, it was the States that made the corrections, not an all-powerful national government.  If any errors in judgment were made, it was only some people on the local level in a State that suffered – not the whole nation.  “The courts are but the instruments to see that government officials keep within the rules which the people themselves have laid down” (Ibid., p.127).

Pettengill continues:

“. . . ‘States’ Rights’ is an unfortunate expression. . . . Geographical areas have no rights.  It is only human beings who have rights.  What is really meant . . . is this:  ‘Where shall power be placed?  Where will the power which necessity forces us to turn over to public officials be exercised most wisely, economically, and safely to the human beings over whom the power is exercised?’  To make a simple illustration – is traffic better regulated from the city hall or by the traffic officer at the intersection?” (Ibid., pp. 187-188).

In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge said that “’No plan of centralization has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction and decline’” (Ibid., p.190). “The waste of public money and the temptation to waste it becomes greater the further removed the spenders are from those who pay the bill. . . Centralized government is always extravagant.  It is a blank letter of credit [see the 14th Amendment].  The results are vicious in the extreme” (Ibid., p.192).

Pettengill continues:  “The Constitution is a set of rules designed to help us live happily together.  It has no other purpose” (Ibid., p.99).  Jefferson said:  “Restrain men from injuring one another . . . but leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”  The very heart of Constitutional morality is the view that the people in the states are capable of self-government and that government is derived from the “consent of the governed.”  Our founding fathers went to great pains “to make state and national government and the different departments of government independent of control, each by the other.  If one cannot perceive the distinction here drawn, he is incapable of understanding our Constitution . . .” (Ibid., p.114).

“. . . [T]he tide toward centralization . . . [is] not likely to be reversed unless the states and their citizens exercise the responsibilities that go with ‘state rights.’  Every right creates a responsibility.  If the responsibility is not exercised, the right is gone.  Power flows to the hands that use it” (Ibid., pp. 192-193).

Centralization leads to collectivism, and no matter how sincere collectivists may be, in time those who seek power for power’s sake will take command of every collectivist movement and use it for their own ends.  Since a belief in God would limit the exercise of their power, they admit of no higher power than themselves.

The following is what happens when State sovereignty is eliminated:

The demise of state sovereignty leaves the citizen at the mercy of an all-powerful central government” (James and Walter Kennedy, The South Was Right!, 6th Ptg., Gretna, Louisiana, 1997, p.219, emphasis added).  “. . . [T]he death of the principle of state sovereignty caused a radical transformation in the very nature and character of the resulting government. . . The current United States Constitution may resemble the original, it may be titled the same, . . . but it does not effectively limit the power of the federal government, nor does it allow the people of the states an avenue to effectively defend their reserved rights . . . . Absent the sovereign state, the individual citizen stands naked and alone, unprotected against the might of a centralized federal government – a government that has assumed unto itself the right to be exclusive judge of the extent of its own powers” (Ibid., p.220, emphasis added). 

Franklin D. Roosevelt admitted on March 2, 1930 that government by oligarchy is brought about when the sovereignty of States is destroyed (Pettengill, p.209).

Ben Franklin said that the government “’can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it when people have become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other’” (Ibid., p.189). And isn’t this what many people, especially nonwhites, object to as fascism today? The evidence of the fascist nature of Lincoln’s Abolitionist democracy is displayed openly in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives behind the speaker’s rostrum.  There one can see a pair of fasces on the wall.  The Confederate States rejected a fascist-type of government, yet most people today mistakenly believe that the government established by Lincoln that we have today is preferable to the government envisioned by the Confederacy in which power was decentralized.  Of course, while internationalists make no attempt to hide their hatred for the Republican form of government that the Confederacy upheld, they admit that the national government that we have today is fascist.  However, their solution is not to decentralize the government and return the power to the States, but to establish a world government in which Communism holds all the power and our Constitution is consigned to the trash bin. 

The Jewish leftists and internationalists have cleverly turned our form of government into a racial issue.  With the rise of Jewish power in our nation, Pettengill says:

“We are moving government farther and farther from the citizen.  This leaves him with a greater sense of confusion and impotence and a diminishing sense of responsibility.  It makes him more grasping for distant handouts, more reckless over the waste of public money.  In so doing we are corroding his character – easy money, soft people. . . . We teach the voter that he can have an abundant life if he votes for it.  We teach the doctrine that it is the business of government to support its citizens rather than citizens to support their government. . . . This substitutes a government by men in place of a government by law. . . . [W]e have been substituting Federal Socialism, or Fascism, for free enterprise” (Ibid., p.210).

Supposedly, our Constitution only protects Whites and was created to exploit the nonwhite world, and therefore nonwhites generally do everything they can to retaliate by getting as much money from the “White man’s government” as possible. The reason for the unparalleled prosperity of the United States has been due to the checks and balances in our government, not to using the blacks as slaves or stealing land and natural resources from American Indians.  Pettengill writes that our Republican form of government “has created more wealth and brought more happiness to more people over a greater expanse of territory and for a longer period of time than the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Princes of Babylon, the Emperors of Rome, the lords of feudalism, or the streamlined Caesars of today” (Ibid., p.205).  Luther Burbank’s genius transformed California and was worth more than all the gold and silver discovered in California in the mid-1800s (Ibid., pp. 234-235), but collectivists and parasites would stifle this kind of genius which might liberate people from tyranny and poverty.  Stifling growth can consist of taxation, the creation of monopolies, control over loans and credit, and stirring up antagonism between classes and races.  To hold back those who want to work so that their income level remains the same as that of those who don’t want to work is a great evil.  Whites, unlike corporations, are a threat to collectivism and parasitism, and therefore the Jewish “elite” enlists nonwhites for their help to put an end to the freedoms that Whites have bestowed on the world.  It doesn’t matter to the Jews that Socialism and Communism are failed philosophies which have never succeeded on their own. 

The form of government which our founding fathers created was to free themselves from the Jewish monarchies and oligarchies of England and Europe, the first of its kind on this planet, not to enslave and/or exploit the nonwhite world, and our Constitution is the only thing that stands in the way of the Jews reestablishing their control over not only America but also the whole world.  Our founders sought to protect themselves from the ferocity and ruthlessness of the legal dictatorship of the Black Nobility.  They “drew upon the greatest traditions of Western civilization, choosing the most admirable provisions of Greek, Roman, and English law.  They divided the government into three compartments to prevent any department from establishing a dictatorial power” (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, p.254)!  Thus, Mr. V. stated:  “We will support the Constitution of the United States in its whole integrity as it came to us from ‘the Fathers,’ believing it to establish in principle the very best form of government which the wisdom of man ever devised.”

Daniel Webster warned that Americans should not take the Constitution for granted:  “Hold on to your Constitution.  Miracles do not cluster.  What has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to it, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy [or a Communist dictatorship to quell anarchy] throughout the world.” 

John Adams added:  “Posterity!  You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom!  I hope you make a good use of it.  If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”


Lincoln set a bad precedent by interfering in domestic matters and social institutions of the individual states.  By interfering with slavery, he opened the door to intruding in other affairs of the States.  Essentially, he crossed the boundaries which had been set by the original Constitutional agreement, or compact, between the States and the Federal Government.

The Federal Government was only empowered to do a few things – primarily concerned with commerce, money, and foreign affairs.  The seat of government, the District of Columbia, was purposely not made a State, so Congress was not limited in legislating for the District, but Congress was limited in what it could legislate for the States.  For instance, a Federal judge overstepped his boundaries by ruling on June 5, 1980 that the city of Parma, Ohio must provide 300 units of low income housing annually.  Pettengill gives another example:

“Water . . . in Wyoming, heretofore under the public control of that state for irrigation and reclamation projects for the benefit of their own citizens, and from which Wyoming and its cities and towns would derive tax revenues for the support of schools and other public facilities, is no longer the property of Wyoming.  That state is to be deprived of the control and distribution of its water to irrigate and reclaim its own land.  Thus the control of the agricultural life and welfare of an entire state may be taken away from its own public affairs and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington” (Pettengill, p.85).

Using Lincoln’s precedent, the Federal Government has not only subordinated the States to itself and civilians to the military but has invaded the privacy of homes, monitors all communications between individuals, oversees people’s eating and health habits, and determines what children are taught in school.  Its enforcement of equality has turned brother against brother, wives against husbands, children against parents, adults against children, blacks against Whites, and religion against religion.  Abolitionists and Communists have made full use of the doctrine of equality to destroy our nation by carrying this doctrine to absurd extremes.  For example, the New York Court of Appeals “threw out the conviction of two homosexuals for sexual acts in a bookstore on the grounds that because the acts occurred in a bookstore, this was an act of ‘free speech’ which was protected by the Constitution!” (Mullins, The Rape of Justice, p.258).  Even the phrase “expectant mother” has been forbidden since it excludes transgender people. 

National boundaries have also been crossed with the Federal Government interfering in the affairs of foreign nations and the mini-State of Israeli interfering in both foreign and domestic affairs of our government.  Foreigners do not respect our national boundaries and not only immigrate without permission but demand all the rights and benefits of citizens with no duties or allegiance expected in return.  Worst of all, Congress pretends that all of its legislation applies equally to the District and to the States.   While Federal judges have correctly ruled that the Constitution does not apply in the jurisdiction of Federal courts, they seem to think they can get away with asserting Federal jurisdiction beyond, or outside of, Washington D.C., the U.S. territories, possessions, and enclaves!

Although George Washington stated, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible” (note that he did not add “or the Talmud or Koran”), the Supreme Court has displaced Christianity and has taken upon itself the role of “Ministry of Morals and Culture.”  It expects society to accept its anti-Christian interpretation of the spirit behind our Constitution.  It has taken upon itself the power to alter the traditional Christian cultural and moral standards upon which our nation is based.  Consequently, marriages between homosexuals have been declared to be Constitutional, and men only have to say they consider themselves to be women to be allowed to use women’s restrooms where they can freely prey on women and children. 

Blacks are permitted to rob, rape, riot, and kill Whites as their right to express and exercise their Constitutional rights.  Muslims are being allowed to immigrate in large numbers so as to be able to force a change in our laws on polygamy, pedophilia, and the separation of Church and State.  The leftist and Communist liberals charge Americans with racism, discrimination, and hate if we refuse to allow those who hate the West and want to overthrow our government and culture from entering our nation.  They use the argument of equality to give them the right to maintain and practice their culture and commit crimes while destroying ours.  The list goes on and on.  The doctrine of equality has brought chaos to our nation because boundaries have been erased or at the least have become indefinite and uncertain.  Our children aren’t even sure who they are anymore since they are taught that identity is fluid, and they can be whatever they want to be.  The leftists purposely misinterpret our Constitution and laws in order to use our freedoms as weapons to destroy our nation – i.e. using our own laws against us.  Everything is interpreted by the letter while the spirit behind our laws is totally ignored or rejected as being racist since people are not equal when it comes to spirit.

Many people still insist that more good than bad was established by outlawing slavery in the South.   However, Jack R. Harper writes:  “The Declaration of Independence declares that the sole purpose of government is the protection of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as endowed by our Creator, not by government.  It is not the purpose of [our] government to redistribute the wealth (to take forcibly through taxation from a worker and give to a non-worker).  This is not charity; it is legalized theft.  Charity by its nature must be voluntary.” Distributing taxpayer money between the haves and have-nots to reduce everyone to the same level opens the door for fraud, corruption, and favoritism as well as for robbing those who are willing to work for a living and virtually turning them into the slaves of those who want a free ride in life.  Likewise, our government’s do-gooder mentality of spreading “democracy” around the world through unending wars was never authorized by our founders as one of its Constitutional duties.  Many decisions of our courts and government fly in the face of common sense, which is their real purpose.

In Part 3 we will discuss the true winners of the “Civil War.”