35 Years of Founding Era History (Chapter 8)

ეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეე� ეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეეე� Welcome folks to chapter 8 of 35 years of founding era history you most likely were never taught in any government school so I think that you will enjoy well at least you will enjoy the knowledge that you are about to gain as we jump first into kind of a synopsis of the Robert Morris fiasco and then kind of a synopsis of the rest of what was happening in America or during the colonies during that period of time as we have discussed Robert Morris the financier and we look at his Bank of North America which was the precursor to the Bank of the United States which was the precursor to the Federal Reserve all three of which operated in the same manner and that was to follow the pattern of the Bank of England which was founded in 1694 with the phrase we shall be able to collect interest off of the money we create out of nothing and that's exactly what we're staring in the face today so the Federal Reserve and all of these bankers and all of these speculators in the era expected to become utterly wealthy just as they had been doing under King George and his legislature which you would call the parliament but anyway let's get into what we might call a final synopsis of this period at least and that was you know we know that all of this was designed because we have the letter from Alexander Hamilton to Mr. Duane in New York in 1780 even before the Articles of Confederation are ratified. Now we're going to touch on several of those subjects very quickly here so hang on it's going to be fun so we're going to attempt to jump right into this and try to give everyone a little bit better understanding of what we're dealing with here but even in our country today there are millions who are strong advocates of an omnipotent centralized government whose every law must be obeyed and every wish granted without question or discussion much less they will tolerate no dissent whatsoever January 6th might come to mind here what are the origins of these people's belief in an omnipotent government could it be a desire for a king as one can see in the holy scriptures 1 Samuel chapter 8 when the Israelites ask Samuel to and I quote make us a king to judge us like all the nations unquote was this the first recorded act of a people rejecting natural law in favor of the laws of man one of particular interest I believe for us is the use of the word nations in that passage the definition of a nation is an aggregate of people united in one form or another today this is most often interpreted as an aggregate of people united under one leader or form of government which cannot be divided you know that old I pledge allegiance to the flag one nation indivisible was a nation the end results of this constitutional convention of 1789 1787 I'm sorry or did the majority of those people we call founders choose to implement a totally different form of government to best understand this one must comprehend what brought those delegates to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to better comprehend the events of the convention of 1787 we must be aware of the motives of those men who pushed politically for that convention and the type of government they would present to the other delegates a great place for examining these motives can be found in what was called the proceedings of commissioners to remedy defects in the federal government which was held on the 11th of September in 1786 in Annapolis Maryland well the Annapolis convention is quite interesting folks and this is where James Madison had hoped to create the constitution that he had hoped to that they did implement in or did write in 1787 but he wanted to do it a year earlier and so he had called for this convention in Annapolis the problem was only five states showed up which should show us unequivocally how terribly concerned the people of the states were with the problems that the federalists said we had but several among those we do call founders were troubled early on about the limitations on government that had been placed on the powers of that government by the articles of confederation which had finally been completely ratified in 1781 troubling to anyone whose goal was a nationalist monarchist form of government which is what the federalists wanted as opposed to a truly federal form of government such as the articles of confederation were these articles specifically article 2 and article 13 so let's read those just so we'll know it and here is the quote each state retains its sovereignty freedom and independence and every power jurisdiction and right which is not by this constitution i mean by this confederation i'm sorry expressly delegated to the united states and congress assembled now this is a critical phrase to understand concerning the government and that is the phrase expressly delegated now expressly delegated in essence means these are the powers that you have do not exceed those powers because they have been expressly delegated to you you do not have the powers of implication or in other words implied powers article 2 took care of that but even more troubling to those who desired a more centralized powerful government was the following phrase which is contained in article 13 and i quote listen carefully folks quote nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them talking about the articles unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states and afterwards be confirmed by the legislatures of every state unquote now think about that the legislatures of every state the constitution of 1787 was not approved by one single legislature that is why madison said we have to take it away from the state for ratification and to put it in conventions which we will control so here we go those who sought to use the government to exercise power and dominion over all of the people realized that the citizens of the 13 colonies held wide and varying beliefs on the role of government in their lives and obtaining the affirmation of all 13 in the pursuit of the national government they desired would be physically impossible because folks they tried the first to strike upon a scheme for alteration of the articles and the very limited government they had formed again was alexander hamilton now in 1782 the new york assembly at the urging of colonel hamilton asked the congress to call for a convention of the states to revise the articles in 1785 the massachusetts legislature seconded the request to congress congress considered the request but did not find a consensus for such an assembly in any of the other colonies see all of this stuff we're taught that the country was about to come apart is an obvious is an obvious marxist lie it was not so james madison then decided to move through the virginia assembly in january of 70 1786 for this special meeting in annapolis maryland to discuss the commercial problems alleged to be in the articles now only 12 delegates from five states made that convention in annapolis to discuss these commercial issues obviously the assemblies of the other other eight states i'm sorry so no compelling reason to attend this convention nor were they overly concerned about any defects of the federal government folks eight states didn't even send any delegates that's how concerned they were about these defects in the articles of confederation now illustrative of this fact even though the convention was held in annapolis maryland the state of maryland sent no delegates in their own home state now i believe if we are to understand the importance of who these delegates were and what their individual motives were it's critical to our understanding of this important but overlooked part of our country's history again 35 years of founding era history that you weren't taught what should be most revealing is the fact that john dickinson of delaware was unanimously elected chairman of the proceedings now you might ask why is that important well dickinson is a weird duck he steadfastly opposed american independence from the crown from the beginning and he refused to vote on or to even sign the declaration of independence now he did get up and leave the room so that the vote would be unanimous but he would not do that would not sign the declaration of independence now this alone should cause one to question his motives concerning altering the articles of confederation which he actually had been involved in writing himself the first version which was rejected interesting also is the fact that the other 11 delegates to the annapolis convention were all politicians or lawyers possibly the only attendee who believed in any form of any limits on the form of government was saint george tucker from virginia it should be noted that alexander hamilton one of the delegates from new york had founded the bank of new york in 1784 for which was being referred to as a global financial services company yes folks 1784 a global financial services bank founded by alexander hamilton now ironically hamilton in september of 1789 acting as the first secretary of the treasury he would initiate a loan from the bank he helped found which was the first bank of the united states to the united states government now surely folks we can all agree on how helpful and supportive global financial interest have been towards our limited form of government over the course of this country's history but james madison the man who's called the father of the constitution other people call him the father of the bill of rights he was instrumental in promoting the annapolis convention and was in fact a delegate himself but i do believe madison was a nationalist monarchist at this time and fostered an agenda contrary to a federal republican form of government all you got to do is read these letters and that becomes increasingly evident this became most apparent with his authoring of the virginia plan in april of 1787 a couple of months well actually a month before the convention a plan in which madison believed the states should be reduced to mere corporations his words folks not mine now ironically that was an idea later supported by abraham lincoln hmm would lincoln and madison have been buds well speculation would say yes the background and the agendas of some of the other delegates to the annapolis convention certainly deserve some investigation one such delegate was tinchcox from pennsylvania now we've heard of tinchcox but not a lot i don't remember even discussing tinchcox i heard the name when i was in school but i don't remember ever really getting into any detail so um here was the thing that uh we look at as we get into these different areas pardon that little interruption there on my part folks uh kind of uh oh kind of lost my train of thought for a second there but anyway as we look at it uh once as i mentioned tinchcox i think we probably need to jump into his background well after the british army occupied philadelphia during the revolution cox continued to carry on a thriving business with both the loyalist and the british army so as a merchant he was dealing out supplies to the british army during the revolution when the patriots took over philadelphia again or the revolutionary army cox left and only to return when the british army retook philadelphia under british general howe in 1777 now there were there are several writings in which uh sons of liberty and others accused cox of having british sympathies and there was even a mention not substantiated i can't prove it but there was a mention that he briefly served in the british army during the revolution now again important was the fact delegates from only five states certainly not a majority fully admitted in their report to exceeding the strict bounds of their appointments folks listen to this because it becomes the central theme they admitted to exceeding the bounds of their appointments as delegates to the annapolis convention so naturally they did the same and nobody was called on it they did the same thing at the philadelphia convention and i'll offer evidence for that as we move along it is important to note this for again it continues they don't care what the rules are and so uh just as a part of their proceedings i will read and quote if in expressing this wish or in intimating any other sentiment your commissioners should seem to exceed the bounds of their appointment they entertain a full confidence that a conduct dictated by an anxiety for the welfare of the united states will not fail to receive an indulgent construction unquote so what they're saying here is totally contrary oh if you if you are so dictated by an anxiety for the welfare of the united states more than five states would have showed up at your convention folks there was no anxiety for the welfare of the united states there was an anxiety among the federalists for a form of government to where they could tax the people to pay for their ventures it's really that simple well it's important to note as i said that anxiety for the welfare of the united states was never shown to be present in any majority of the states indicated by the lack of attendance which i just mentioned but it was present only in the select few who call themselves federalists who would because of their past actions in annapolis be at least suspect once they reach philadelphia so at the convention in annapolis which led directly to the call for delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787 we have determined the following number one a chairman john dickinson elected unanimously as chairman who had refused to sign the declaration of independence and had opposed american independence and separation from the crown now does that not sound unusual why would you elect a man to head your convention who had never supported independence i think that's very telling don't you well let's look at number two an influence sorry an influential member of the delegation alexander hamilton who had been the first to call for this convention and had recently formed a bank with an at the time professed global financial interest were those interests connected to the bank of england and is it simply coincidence hamilton would become our first secretary of the treasury and would then call for a united states bank which thomas jefferson and many others called totally unconstitutional number three another member of this delegation tench cox was known to give aid and comfort to the british during the revolution while profiting from the act and is alleged to have possibly served briefly in the military of the crown then of course there was james madison who months before the convention of 1787 had written a very a new plan of government that was totally nationalist and not federal and who throughout his political career would change his political views to comport with the existence of the moment and by that 1792 he switches and decides he's not going to support alexander hamilton anymore he's going to support thomas jefferson and because he sees jefferson gaining popularity now ample evidence of this fact can be found in madison's vacillations about the rights of the states over and over and over again well conspicuously absent from this convention was any support or mention of the motives and the principles of the articles of confederation which had led this country to its independence or the values of liberty expressed by such patriots as patrick henry and samuel adams would it be of interest to know why these two patriots were not selected as delegates to that annapolis convention there can be little doubt that the annapolis convention led to the constitutional convention of 1787 and a departure from several key principles of the articles of confederation should we the people be alarmed that the proponents and leaders of the annapolis convention were perhaps still loyal to the crown and perhaps even well we know they were loyal to the bank of england and desirous of either a return to a complete monarchy in which they would be the leaders or at the very least a government of a nationalistic character not at all unlike the despotic government that we're living in today there are no doubts those delegates from the annapolis convention sought to bring about change outside of the dictates of the law of the land at that time which was the articles of confederation these people had formed a conspiracy to break the law why well i believe that as we move along we are going to find out exactly why well folks we uh i guess that kind of covers at least for now that annapolis convention i think which tells us a lot about the very beginning and uh so uh we learned there that of the 12 men there that john dickinson again who had i hate to be redundant but this but it's important he had refused to sign the declaration of independence and he supported england in the revolutionary war and somehow he was elected chairman of that group unanimously well it should be also noted that of mr dickinson a brilliant man he also drafted the first articles of confederation in 1776 and he was a delegate to the convention in 1787 but he wouldn't sign the constitution but had a proxy sign it for him now we learned that the annapolis convention had been called because the congress found no interest in amending the articles of confederation as had been requested by alexander hamilton james madison and several others and it was apparent these 12 representatives wished to circumvent the law of the land at that time which was the articles of confederation and they were willing to circumvent the law to strengthen the government that they wanted now history would tell us that when men seek to strengthen government they do so believing such actions will benefit them directly and they seldom if ever benefit those who will be governed under their stronger government very interesting is that two delegates to the annapolis convention hamilton and madison went along with john jay later assumed the title of federalist and right is publius when in truth they're designed for a future government were anything but federalist and were actually strongly nationalist or monarchical their their presentations for a new form of government in the convention of 1787 are absolutely proof proof positive of my allegation alexander hamilton james madison and john jay wrote the federalist papers which are revered today by so many the problem is these essays were simply an ad campaign or a marketing strategy to convince the people of new york to accept the new constitution without a bill of rights now look at what the federalists did not what they said or not what they wrote when the nationalist monarchists masquerading as federalist left annapolis in september of 1786 their goal was to completely overhaul the ruling documents and create a totally centralized form of government while totally scrapping the restrictive articles of confederation but they knew that presenting their plan as such would not gather the support they knew hey they'd only been able to get five colonies to show up in annapolis but they needed to assure delegates to the convention whom they intended to control it bears repeating that 12 lawyer politicians from only five states who favored a nationalist monarchist form of government were able to convince congress that the articles of confederation were deficient and needed a convention of states to recommend amendments these delegates were also fully aware that in order to get a majority of people to vote contrary to their own interest coercion of some form was absolutely necessary and there were no means of coercion to be found in the articles of confederation like politicians of all ages throughout our recorded history the nationalist centralist group knew that to accomplish their goals subterfuge was absolutely required therefore the rallying call for the philadelphia convention in 1787 was formed on the idea of amending the articles of confederation notwithstanding the rhetoric of the nationalist monarchist concerns of the weakness and inability to deal with issues of commerce and trade when boiled down to the lowest common denominator the real issue the federalists had with the articles was a lack of ability to coerce the populace to accommodate their political agenda this excerpt from a letter by george washington to john jay in august of 1786 well illustrates my contention and i quote we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature informing our confederation experience has taught us that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power many are of the opinion that congress has too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition in applications to the states when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and to command obedience unquote so folks there's the father of the country laying it out pretty he said that men will not adopt and carry into execution the measures best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power now we can read that that sounds well yeah well so so so but here's the thing who did washington intend or what did he intend to do and who did he think was the people who had the you know their own good you know in in practice what did washington think and who was going to decide for all of these people who did not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good that that one folks that one just gets me but the implication found in washington's short passage reveals the fact that the monarchist or federalist if you want to call them that believe leaders of this new country had the right to assert their imperial dignity and to command obedience from the people now folks i would ask you this how is that different from what we hear today from the same species of politicians it wasn't it is important and i think we should know this that the state of massachusetts congress when initially asked to provide delegates to the convention that would strengthen the articles of confederation responded with this comment now listen this is oh this is good quote more power in congress has been the cry from all quarters but especially of those whose views not being confined to a government that will best promote the happiness of the people are extended to one that will afford lucrative employment civil and military such a government is an aristocracy which would require a standing army and a numerous train of pensioners to prop and support its exalted administration unquote massachusetts stated exactly that this was the government and an aristocracy which would require a standing army and a numerous train of pensioners which means government employees the people that patrick henry referred to as the federal and state sheriffs so therefore the mash the nationalist monarchist who again posed as federalist must have been incensed at those words shortly after massachusetts comes out with this john jay in a letter to george washington says this unquote private rage for property suppresses public considerations and personal rather than national interest have become the great objects of their attention unquote so we can't have these people wanting to look out for themselves because the wealthy aristocracy needs to be looked after and needs to have a government which would give them the power which they just they believe they deserve well folks isn't that now the identical argument that is centered around so many events are we not continually forced to accept the loss of our individual and our creator endowed rights and to give up our property money for the greater good well james madison who urged george washington to allow his name to appear on the list of delegates to the constitutional convention even though initially washington had expressed his doubts about ever attending such a convention due to a prior commitment to the order of the cincinnatus so he wanted washington madison wanted washington to present this plan because he believed no one would question washington because of his stature so he sent this virginia plan to washington by mail in april of 1787 along with a letter which contained the following phrase now washington knew that washington's name as a delegate would create more confidence in the states for the upcoming convention they did not want to repeat of the annapolis convention where only five states showed up now of course washington did eventually decide to attend the convention but madison this one simple phrase that madison sent to washington about the new form of government was this phrase quote the right of coercion should be expressly declared unquote in their new constitution the right of coercion now what did jefferson say freedom was the absence of coercion often wondered how he and madison got along so well together but the fact that madison had written and eventually transmitted to george washington and others including hamilton a plan for a new form of government before the convention began could certainly be considered prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and they were intending to scrap the articles of confederation for a more centralized nationalistic let's use madison's words coercive form of government now i believe that most of the 74 delegates picked initially selected by their state legislators to attend the 1787 convention believed they were to travel to philadelphia to amend the articles of confederation only now we're going to get into that a little bit deeper as we move along but it should be noted that the convention did not begin on time and it was the 25th of may before a quorum of states was seated 19 of the selected delegates never attended a single session approximately only 30 delegates were there for the full four months and new hampshire's delegation was two months late two months late arriving while rhode island did not attend at all which made the convention illegal because any such convention according to the articles of confederation which was the law of the land required the consent of every state legislature conspicuously missing from the delegates who did attend were several most notable among those we mistakenly or yeah i guess we could just call them founding fathers thomas jefferson was in france john adams was in england thomas paine samuel adams and john hancock were never invited while patrick henry who was selected did not attend stating he smelled a rat smelt a rat in philadelphia tending toward a monarchy what an astute prescient statement by the wonderful patrick henry so i hope that this is giving some background here folks so that you can begin to understand you know exactly what we're dealing with here with this mess so regardless of how many times you read it or how many revisionist court historians marxist court historians write about it there is absolutely zero evidence available which indicates there was any groundswell of support among the people of the 13 colonies for abandoning the articles of confederation it's just not there if you look at any complaints about the articles they never came from the people they came from the powerful aristocracy well where could one go to discover the truth of this well why not to the words of the man who most wanted to change the limitations of the articles to a form of government much more to his liking a monarchy which he called for at the constitutional convention and failing that he wanted a strong centralized national government well of course it was alexander hamilton and here is let's look at his own words what better to use as an indictment than the own words and the only way you're going to get all of these words and learn these words is to do deep research you're not going to find this written by your marxist historians like eric phoner and many others it's just not going to happen but here's what hamilton said and i quote men of intelligence discovered the feebleness of the structure talking about the articles of confederation there it is folks wasn't the people and even he admitted it by saying but the great body of the people too much engrossed with their distresses to contemplate any but the immediate causes of them were ignorant of the defects of their constitution unquote so it's good thing that the wonderful man of intelligence alexander hamilton the jewish alexander hamilton had that to say that the poor dumb people were just too ignorant to rule themselves hmm so none other than patrick henry of virginia saw through the deception he did not believe the articles were weak and speaking on this subject patrick henry said the confederation the same despised government merits in my opinion the highest incomium it carried us through a long and dangerous war it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation it has secured us a territory greater than any monarch possesses and a government which has been thus strong and vigorous how can it be accused of imbecility and abandoned for a want of energy why then tell us dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new government and yet who knows the dangers this new system may produce they are out of sight of the common people it is for them i fear the adoption of this new system sir it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers fear is the passion of slaves unquote folks would you rather have a government designed by alexander hamilton or one designed by patrick henry well we know that the framers of the articles of confederation had included the following in article 2 read it a little earlier but i think it bears repeating and that's each state retains its sovereignty freedom and independence and every power jurisdiction and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the united states and congress assembled unquote this was one of the conditions present in the articles that these federalist monarchist nationalists knew they had to get rid of the nationalist monarchist did not want to contend with the ideas questions and objections from 13 different colonies but they instead wanted to have one people in aggregate as a nation controlled by a central all-powerful form of government which they would in turn be in charge of this would leave the states having very little to no voice in how they would be governed now is any of this beginning to sound familiar folks any of it the states retaining their sovereignty freedom and independence from the control of men of intelligence as hamilton had described himself and his fellow federalists would have as their government a confederated republic the complete antithesis of a nationalist form of government especially like the one we have today in addition none of these men of intelligence wanted a government that would be limited to those powers which would be expressly delegated through the consent of the governed again understanding the difference between expressly delegated powers and granted powers is to understand the crucial difference in tyranny and limited representative government expressly delegated means that there is little to no room for interpretation by any set of government employees or bureaucrats and clearly defines the intent of the people who actually founded this country and those would be the rank and file in the revolutionary army people like patrick henry luther martin and others now it is of the highest importance in my opinion that one understands that the federal government and the articles of confederation could operate only on the states it had no control or power over individuals just the states imagine if we had that today if an egregious or tyrannical law was passed by the federal government the states could simply ignore it under the articles the federal government could not arrest could not arrest or imprison a state therefore the intelligent men in hamilton view realized they must have a national form of government that could and would act on the individual i believe this is to be the very first confrontation between nationalists and advocates of states rights a battle that would surface again in the 1830s with justice joseph story and senator daniel webster on the side of the federalist nationalist programs and senator john c colquhoun on the side of states rights now folks as we move forward we will have and discuss this battle of words and ideas but this battle of ideas would eventually lead to an open bloody war in 1861 a war that would take the lives of probably over a million individuals and permanently install a marxist form of government in this country people we have not deviated from a marxist government since 1860 every malady and malaise that faces us in our country today can be traced to the implementation of nationalism instead of a strict adherence to the rights of the people of a state to nullify an act of government ah folks but ignorance does reign supreme does it not for on any given day you can find a group of people somewhere who mistakenly believe that they are being patriotic robotically pledging allegiance to one nation indivisible a phrase which was written by a national socialist it is also of importance that when the constitutional convention of 1787 opened in may a time when representatives of only six states were in attendance the first resolution adopted stated folks this is critical a national government ought to be established unquote again to illustrate that the idea of the national form of government was repeatedly voted down in the constitutional convention of 1787 which it wasn't not really but that's what they claim once representatives from the other states had arrived the record of the proceedings as recorded by robert yates a delegate from new york commonly known in today's parlance as yates minutes stated the following and i quote ellsworth meaning oliver ellsworth from connecticut said i propose and therefore move to expunge the word national in the first resolve and to place in the room of it government of the united states which was agreed to without objection hopefully that what we've looked at here will be even a stronger reason for you to thoroughly get and understand this period of history and to understand how much of what is so critical in your life you were never ever taught well let's get back into this and see what we got here folks i think this would be critical and just a little bit more information and we'll finish up chapter eight with this and that is folks it is an easily understood axiom that the closer you stand to the fire the more you feel the heat that holds true especially for the fire of freedom and rightful liberty the declaration of independence was written when the fire of liberty was burning deep in the hearts and souls of people such as samuel adams john hancock thomas jefferson patrick henry paul revere and many others the articles of confederation were written shortly thereafter while the revolutionary war was still raging in 1777 but they did not come in force until maryland who was concerned with incursions into the state by the british finally ratified in 1781 once the war for independence had allegedly been won and the treaty of paris signed in september of 1783 the passionate fires of freedom while recently confirmed through that treaty began to cool and that's natural in very short order men of intelligence according to monarchist alexander hamilton began to examine how the newly formed government could be exploited to their advantage hamilton would be joined in this pursuit by many loyalists and nationalists such as john dickinson and uh tench cox and james madison john jay and many others of lesser note now it should be noted in the treaty of paris that king george demanded that all of the 13 colonies or states be signatories to that treaty and acknowledge them to be free sovereign and independent states and they would be treated as such direct words from the treaty but it also said in the treaty that king george would be prince of the united states well yeah i wonder how that happened well as the monarchist and nationalists sought out ways to convert a government to an instrument of power and financial gain they found themselves stymied in their efforts and as i had mentioned before by articles 2 and articles 13 in the articles of confederation the form of government that would provide hamilton and his intelligent men with the powers they sought could not allow each state to retain its sovereignty freedom and independence it just was not going to work it also could not be limited by expressly delegated powers and we'll get into the clause they wrote to deal with that the form of government desired by the monarchist and nationalists would require a totally coercive power which was not to be found in the articles of confederation special notice should be given in article 8 i'm sorry article 13 to the phrase on all questions submitted to them now folks that is quite significant this phrase established the power in the states to limit the central government in its power to only deal with issues submitted to that central government by the states for their action this was a limitation the men of intelligence as hamilton referred to his federalist knew would not provide them with the coercive power their agendas would require the government they desired must have the power to create problems which only they could provide legislation to fix using copious amounts of the people's money of course and then to put them into a never there's no way you know you i don't know how intelligent you are according to hamilton but here's one thing i do know this debt is unpayable people and it just keeps increasing all the time well i use the word course and the phrase coercive power so where is my proof that this power was actually even desired by hamilton madison jay washington and others one such more proof can be found in a letter again that i read you before goes right back to the imperial dignity and command obedience from washington to john jay and again james madison would write in correspondence to george washington again in april of 1787 a month before the convention begins and he would state and i quote the right of coercion should be expressly declared with the resources of common in hand the national administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land they're already talking about how they could force the people through a standing army how else could they refer to by sea or by land as depressing as it may be to those who have held george washington in high esteem all these years it is most obvious from his letter to john jay that he believed the government should possess or did possess imperial dignity and it had the right to command obedience well has anyone heard these exact sentiments expressed recently when it comes to executive orders and immigration issues well the articles of confederation were in my humble opinion the ultimate expression of state rights the actions of congress were limited to those issues submitted to them by the states and any action by that congress required the unanimous consent of all of the states the states remained sovereign free and independent and thoroughly protected from acts of coercion by the federal government this is the very epitome of nullification or state interposition which there are even groups out there that claim we still have when all of the evidence to the contrary indicates we do not but the constitution of 1787 changed all of that and created a nationalist monarchist form of government nonsense as previously shown madison hamilton wilson and other nationalists were repeatedly you know oh well we won't even go into that but we know they wanted to manipulate everything to suit their needs therefore madison hamilton and john jay set about to promote that document with great experiment with a great experiment in marketing known as the federalist papers the effort was designed to say what the people wanted to hear about the government and not what they truly believed but they ran head on into the buzzsaw that was state ratification conventions but those get to be quite the study and we will get into that but whether some choose to believe it or not the state ratification conventions performed the monumental task of restoring the powers of nullification and reasserted the concept of state rights even before the presentation and ratification of the bill of rights in 1789 patriots like patrick henry governor george clinton and robert yates of new york samuel bryan and the minority from pennsylvania and the hundreds of others who would become known as anti-federalist they fought gallantly to preserve the rights of the states the anti-federalists would become the jeffersonian republicans who were troubled by the defects they saw in the constitution and define them as the senate becoming a bastion of autocratic privilege you think that's not true today just ask joe biden the presidency became an imperial one that would overall the congress and an intrusive federal court system that would create its own laws which would be oppressive tyrannical and destroy the individual rights of the citizens so you might say uh hey uh rebel uh what's the proof of your allegation that the rights of the states were protected by the anti-federalists very simply stated those restored rights can be found in the ratification documents of those three states virginia new york and rhode island to wit virginia states is following we remember these are in the ratification documents so the government accepted these documents so when they accepted the documents it created a contract and we've all said well secession is not mentioned in the constitution no but it's part of the acceptance of the constitution three these three states prove it and virginia said we the delegates of the people of virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly and now met in convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the federal convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide their own do in the name and in behalf of the people of virginia notice they said people of virginia not an aggregate of the people of the united states declare and make known that the powers granted under the constitution being derived from the people of the united states may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will unquote now how did new york respond or what did they put in there that gave them the same authority new york that all power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the people and that government is instituted by them for their common interest protection and security that the enjoyment of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are essential rights which every government ought to respect and preserve that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness that every power jurisdiction and right which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the congress of the united states or the departments of the government thereof remains to the people of the several states or to their respective state governments to whom they may have granted the same and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that congress shall not have or exercise certain powers do not imply that congress is entitled to any powers not expressly given by that said constitution but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution now what did rhode island say about secession and i will read that in that there are certain natural rights of which men when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty with the means of acquiring possessing and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety that all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived from the people that their magistrates therefore are their trustees and their agents and at all times amenable to the people third that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people that's called secession people when it so ever it shall become necessary to their happiness that the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers and every other power jurisdiction and right which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the congress of the united states or to the departments of government thereof remain to the people of the several states or their respective state governments to whom they may have granted the same now folks these three states using the power of their ratification of the constitution re-established article 2 of the articles of confederation nullification and state interposition when they formally ratified the constitution now either all states have these same powers re-established or virginia rhode island and new york are not now nor ever have been legal members of the united states obviously the provisions listed by these states were accepted or there would have been no acceptance of their ratification to prove this we need to go no farther than article 4 section 2 of the u.s constitution which i will quote for you the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states so folks if virginia new york and rhode island have the right to secede every state had the right to secede liberty freedom and coercion cannot reside on the same plane of existence a government that asks you to just say no to drugs but say yes to coercion and physical and fiscal slavery is an abomination and is a complete absurdity if a state cannot just say no to an unconstitutional law or act they're slaves no matter how many times they sing land of the free and home of the brave the states created the central government as is in evidence with the treaty of paris and king george's insistence that all 13 states signed the treaty absent any central authority whatsoever it's not mentioned in the treaty of a central authority also the articles of confederation required the agreement of all the states on any piece of legislation proposed by congress the states created the central government to protect their rights not to minimize their influence and to negate their power to decide what is best for them and their citizens to deny a state's right to nullify legislation that it sees as tyrannical or oppressive is to deny the complete and total ideals and principles of the declaration of independence and those anti-federalists who denied the nationalist and monarchist their desires for a totally coercive government in 1787 and the brave representatives to the states that reclaim their rights to nullify and to interpose as was shown in the ratification agreement of those three states to deny nullification is to embrace physical slavery i contend that if we demand the right to nullify acts of the federal government using the tools provided by those three ratification documents we could see a rapid transition from an oppressive government to a representative government although it is my certain opinion that it's too late for that now we don't need new amendments we need a populace with the courage to use what we already have so uh folks uh we're coming uh towards the uh close here and uh just uh went over the one hour amendment one hour uh limit that i put on myself and we're a little over that uh pardon my blubbering here and there but uh anyway uh let's uh think about what's coming up well folks as we close this one out uh we're sitting uh at least today as i have put this together we are a couple of days before christmas and uh i would just like to thank each and every one of you for tuning in to my series here the 35 years of founding era history you were probably never taught about and i think it's vital that we learn these lessons and i think it's vital that we lessons so i would like to wish each and every one of you a very very merry christmas and a happy new year of course i hope to be back with you before we jump into those with any uh fervor whatsoever and uh if you can folks if you have the opportunity please support my work here at substack very much appreciate that so again best wishes for everyone and thank you and god bless