The Act of 1871, Part 1: The Preface
The Power of Corporatization
The Act of 1871 and the Corporatization of America is a long, detailed, and complex topic and for the sake of providing all of the sourced evidence and context, I will be breaking this down in to parts that are relatively digestible.
The information in this post is sourced from a combination of my research, the research of those before me (already published), Congressional documents, Supreme Court documents, government documents, and more, plus all of their archives. Sources quoted will be directly available under the information given AND cited as references at the bottom of each “part” for self-verification. As a disclaimer, I am merely providing factual evidence to paint a picture of the political and economic state of America and the world over the last four centuries and it is the responsibility of the reader, and with full liability, to discern its truth and merit.
Recognizing that we live, politically and economically, under the Corporation of America is a big step in being able to overcome it, and I will show you we indeed do, but in order to truly and fully understand what we are dealing with we need to understand WHY it was allowed to happen and HOW it happened.
To understand that much we need to know the players and the timeline that led up to it going all the way back to pre American Revolutionary War time to the expansionist colonization of Europe and the world by dominant European nations and very wealthy merchants/bankers.
All expansionist colonization and the subsequent wars in history were fought out of greed and lust for world pre-eminence; global dominance in money/land, power, and control of religion. In the 1500’s-1700’s many of the wealthy merchants and powerful nations of Europe decided to expand their business and territories in seek of more wealth and power; namely Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. A century later Italy and Germany would also get involved. The elite merchants in various industries, funded by merchant banks and wealthy private investors, would colonize new land in Europe, North America, Caribbean, South America, West Africa, India, and the Philippines.
In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, a great deal of Europe's long-distance trade, cross-cultural contact, and colonial enterprise was designed, engineered, and managed not by monarchies or the state, but by companies. These companies, whether primarily designed for plantation or long-distance trade, generally possessed royal charters that detailed rights to wage war, conduct diplomacy, control commerce, and administer settlements in the known and undiscovered world. While their propriety and viability has been a matter of debate since their creation, such bodies were a crucial feature of early modern European empires.
Outside of France, Spain, and Portugal’s monarchies, who mostly pioneered the expansion and colonization themselves, England and the Netherlands used their monarchies AND the Joint Stock Company to further their colonization. As you can see above, these companies/merchants had a special relationship with their monarchies that allowed them to essentially act on behalf of the monarchies as they expanded colonization.
The joint-stock system also involved new constituencies in overseas activities, including the gentry and nobility, which had little place in a regulated or unincorporated trade. Politically, these bodies were corporate singularities, legal "persons" with an expectation of institutional permanence and "perpetual succession." They also had the rights and duties of self-governance and did so through an often sophisticated hierarchical internal and external political organization. Neither public nor private, these companies were bodies politic in themselves. (Read that again and hold it to memory)
The 1600’s:
There was an explosion of joint stock (corporated) companies. Some of the biggest influencers and a few notable ones to remember for later were:
English East India Company (1600)
Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, 1602)
Virginia Company (1606)
Plymouth (1606)
Newfoundland Company (1610)
Somers Island (Bermuda) Company (1615)
Guinea Company (1618)
Dutch West India Company (West-Indische Compagnie, 1621)
Massachusetts Bay Company (1629)
Providence Island Company (1630) in the West Indies
Royal African Company (1672) in West Africa
While some of these companies would go on to be century long powerhouses before being absorbed by their respective governments, a good number of these companies lasted only decades, but they laid the foundations for the English slave trade, Atlantic commerce, and "foreign plantations" in the Americas. These companies will later play roles in the financing of slavery and the problems that would help bring rise to the Civil War in America.
Occurring at the same time as the the expansion and colonization throughout the 1600’s was internal division. The battle of the Protestant Reformation vs Roman Catholicism, along with the struggles of whether or not the monarchies should be Protestant or Catholic, as well, in England, whether or not Parliament or the Monarchy should rule, drove Europe into wars with one another, and drove England into years of civil war. Focusing specifically on England, here is a brief timeline of relating events in England and Europe:
1603 Queen Elizabeth I dies and King James I (Protestant) is now the monarch. His wife Anne is from Denmark and they have a son Charles I (who would marry a Catholic).
1605 Gunpowder plot fails to kill King James I
1607 First English colony in America - Jamestown
1611 King James version of the Bible completed
1625 King James Dies, son Charles I (half Danish) becomes King
Charles I (Catholic wife and thought to be secret Catholic) dukes it out with Parliament (Pro-Protestant) which sought to curb monarch power.
1639-1651 Civil Wars - England, Scotland, Ireland over Catholicism vs Protestantism and Monarch Rule vs Parliamentary Rule
The victors beheaded Charles I, vanquished his son, Charles II, to France, and Oliver Cromwell declares himself Lord Protector of an English Republic.
1652 Anglo-Dutch Wars begin
1658 Cromwell dies
1660 Charles II comes back and becomes King; Restoration of the English monarchy.
1662 Goldsmiths start handing out receipts for cash held, starting cheques and banknotes
1664 British troops capture New Amsterdam and renamed New York
1664 Great Plague breaks out in London
1672 Charles II attempted to introduce religious freedom for Catholics and Protestant dissenters with his 1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence, but the English Parliament forced him to withdraw it.
The Exclusion Crisis ran from 1679 until 1681 in the reign of Charles II. Three Exclusion bills sought to exclude the King's brother and heir presumptive, James, Duke of York, from the throne because he was Roman Catholic.
1683 the Exclusion Crisis saw the birth of the pro-exclusion Whig and anti-exclusion Tory parties. Charles II sided with the Tories, and after the discovery of the Rye House Plot to murder Charles and James in 1683, some Whig leaders were executed or forced into exile.
1685 James II (Catholic) inherits throne after his brother Charles II dies and heavily favors Roman Catholics again
1688 Whig Conspiracy to remove James II and replace with Protestant William III of Orange (Dutch) who married Mary (cousins) (both grandchildren of Charles I)
1688 Glorious Revolution / Protestant Parliament against Catholicism Monarchy. England becomes a Constitutional Monarchy. James II flees to France. During the Glorious Revolution, surviving members of the Oxford Parliament met again in December 1688, following the flight of James II - leading to the election of the irregular Convention Parliament which conferred the Throne jointly on William III of Orange and Mary II.
1688 William III of Orange becomes King surrounded by Dutch merchants, bankers, and investors. England becomes a Constitutional Monarchy
1694 Massive debts from all the wars cause the need for the Bank of England. Created by a Scot, William Paterson, for the sole purpose of lending money to King William III of Orange as well as his proposal to finance the future of government debt by private subscription of individual shareholders was innovative in its days. He later said "The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." (saying the quiet part out loud)
1695, owing to a disagreement with his colleagues, the creator of the Bank of England, William Paterson, withdrew from the board. He would later come up with the idea for the South Seas Company.
1695 The first Governor of the Bank of England was Sir John Doublon, a Dutchman. John Doublon was also Sheriff of the City of London in 1689, an Alderman from 1689 to 1712, Master of the Grocer's Company from 1690 to 1691, Lord Mayor in 1695, Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty from 1694 to 1699. He was again a Bank of England director in 1700, and a director of the New East India Company from 1700 to 1701. His younger brother, Abraham Houblon, was also the Bank of England Governor, from 1703 to 1705. A daughter of Abraham Houblon, Anne, was married to Henry Temple, later Viscount Palmerston, in 1703. His older brother, James, an influential merchant and Member of Parliament for the City of London, was also a director of the Bank of England. Four other of his brothers were prosperous merchants
1697 The Bank of England secured its position of prominence when parliament forbade the formation of any further joint-stock banks in England in a deliberative effort and anti-competitive practice to form a barrier to market entry for would be competitors like the South Seas Company, which saw the Bank of England as its main competitor for national banking.
An even more thorough timeline of England in the 1600’s can be found here.
All this time, underneath all of the wars for land and power, were the growing merchant banks and the wealthy merchants who were in financial control of these banks and companies. The merchant bankers, who weren’t necessarily tied to national allegiances or borders, figured out that lending credit to governments with interest and with the debt backed by Customs (trade) and the taxes of the citizenry of these governments was more secure than banking with individuals. Since the greed for control of religion, land, and power led to wars over the last century, and the debts so large and secured, which led to the establishment of State Banks such as the Bank of England (1695), the Bank of Spain (1782), the Bank of France (1800), modeled similarly after the Bank of Amsterdam due heavily to Dutch banking influence, which were responsible for loaning the nations money to fund their expansions and subsequent multi-continental wars. To further solidify their positions of power, family members of those that controlled the Bank of England were also members of Parliament, were part of law enforcement, members of City Councils and were Mayors, and were also very wealthy merchants that all sought to benefit from the banking system now in place.
Specifically in Britain, not everyone was on board in the beginning of the creation of the bank. For instance, in 1695, “In the “Lords” (always the more prejudiced and conservative body than the “Commons”), the bill to create the Bank of England met with great opposition. Some noblemen imagined that the Bank was intended to exalt the moneyed interest and debase the landed interest; and others imagined the bill was intended to enrich usurers, who would prefer banking their money to lending it on mortgage. "Something was said," says Macaulay, "about the danger of setting up a gigantic corporation, which might soon give laws to the King and the three estates of the realm.""
Later we would find their fears were not unjustified as these mortgages brought all these nations’ political and economical abilities under a degree of control by the bankers as they controlled the supply of money for their endeavors. With the added interest on some of these historically large loans, the banks profited greatly and they subsequently, and additionally, increased their wealth through their own self interests in specific business/trade. With control over vast swaths of critical merchant industries and banking, they could manipulate the markets, cause recessions, and spark revolutions, which resulted in more war and more debt revenue to the same bankers, and helpless governments (essentially forced) to renew the charters for these banks holding their debts.
Competition for the Bank of England due to the struggle of the government to help pay the country’s mounting debts:
1711 The South Sea Company. “The government, in part, perhaps realizing what it had allowed with the Bank of England, had become dissatisfied with the service it was receiving from the foreign interest owned Bank of England, and Edward Harley (a Tory) was actively seeking new ways to improve the national finances. The South Sea Company, originally suggested by William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England, was a joint-stocks company, formed to develop trade with South America and as a rival to the Whig dominated Bank of England and East India Company, primarily as a source of funding of government loan debt. However, Company stock rose greatly in value as it expanded its operations dealing in government debt, and peaked in 1720 before suddenly collapsing.”
1720 The Bubble Act, “that incorporated the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation, and which forbade the creation of joint-stock companies without royal charter, was promoted by the South Sea Company itself before its collapse. Thousands of investors were ruined by the share-price collapse, and as a result, the national economy diminished substantially. The founders of the scheme engaged in insider trading, by using their advance knowledge of the timings of national debt consolidations to make large profits from purchasing debt in advance. Huge bribes were given to politicians to support the Acts of Parliament necessary for the scheme. Company money was used to deal in its own shares, and selected individuals purchasing shares were given cash loans backed by those same shares to spend on purchasing more shares. The expectation of profits from trade with South America was talked up to encourage the public to purchase shares, but the bubble prices reached far beyond what the actual profits of the business (namely the slave trade) could justify. A parliamentary inquiry was held after the bursting of the bubble to discover its causes. A number of politicians were disgraced, and people found to have profited immorally from the company had personal assets confiscated proportionate to their gains.'“ Competition for holding of the government’s debt was effectively squashed, for now.
The 1700’s:
Monarchs: “England had a total of five monarchs during the 1700s: William III, Anne, George I, George II and George III. The Act of Settlement, signed in 1701, helped evolve the principle of a constitutional monarchy, still used in England today. The monarch ruled, but alongside constitutional advisers drawn from the government rather than handpicked personal advisers. The Act of Settlement also established that England’s monarchs would be Protestant, and that monarchs had to have the consent of parliament to leave the country or declare war.”
House of Commons: “was the elected part of the British Parliament, albeit that the electorate was made up only of a small number of wealthy men. For much of the 1700s, the Whigs were the dominant party; they supported unpopular foreign-born monarchs and tended to be associated with urban areas and the “new” money made in industry and finance. In contrast, their Tory opponents were more commonly associated with the “old” inherited money of the rural landowning class.”
House of Lords: “In contrast, members of the House of Lords were not elected to their positions. Prior to 1711, all Lords were hereditary, meaning they had inherited their titles from an ancestor who had been given the title by a monarch. However, in 1711 Queen Anne eroded the monarch’s power by creating the first peers for party purposes. The House of Lords worked alongside the House of Commons but the latter had the final say in many matters, particularly those relating to finance.”
By 1756-1763 these nations, each infiltrated with their respective foreign financial bankers, with their allied trade/banking/merchant partnerships, would continue the trend and fight each other in a larger, expansionist and colonization based, multi-continent war called the Seven Years War. Focusing specifically on the North American Colonies, the Seven Year War was predated two years by the French and Indian War (1754-1763) which saw the colonies of France and Britain in North America, each with their respective Native American support, fight each other for control over their respective expansionist abilities. After the Seven Years War, and the many previous aforementioned wars with France/Spain/etc, and the French and Indian War in North America, Britain’s debt had increased to 122 million pounds by January 1763—an enormous sum for the time. Interest on the debt was more than 4.4 million pounds a year. Figuring out how to pay the interest alone absorbed the attention of the King and his ministers.
A new generation of British ministers, including Charles Townshend and William Pitt, assumed power. They were convinced that the continued expansion of British trade and national influence depended on the reform of imperial administration and taxation in the North American colonies- resulting in a recession as the balance of trade revenue benefited Britain significantly more than the colonists. Parliament, which had already passed Navigations Acts and Molasses Act (set to expire), passed The Sugar Act of 1764 , the Currency Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Quartering Act of 1765, the Declaratory Act of 1766, the Townshend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773, the Intolerable (Coercive) Acts of 1774.
It just seems to me that this must have been part of the original plan when forming State Bank lending with interest because the debt is always passed on in business/trade/tax to someone else instead of themselves while the bankers rake in huge profits. The colonists, however, were upset because the buck was being passed to them and they thought expansion was an equal opportunity partnership in North America. As such, the population became increasingly divided between American Patriots and Loyalists (those who supported the King). Out of disdain for disparity, war would break out in another “Revolution”.
On April 19, 1775 the Revolutionary War began as the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. July 4, 1776, after a year of fighting and 13 years of taxation, the Second Continental Congress adopts the signed Declaration of Independence, breaking with Britain.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.
“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” You really should read the whole Declaration of Independence. It is one giant middle finger to Britain and a declaration of sovereignty as well as political and economical independence.
Side Note for later: Notice “united” is not capitalized. This is because the first 13 states were considered sovereign and separate entities, at least this was their intent with the Declaration of Independence; to declare independent sovereignty from Britain. The word “united” here is an adjective describing the relationship of the states, and not a title or proper noun.
ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be ‘‘The United States of America.’’
>now we have an official title and a central government.
>state sovereignty reigns supreme over The United States of America.
>the states are sovereign and will unite against any foe, foreign or domestic, that threatens or impedes that sovereignty (remember this for later)
But war was expensive. Very expensive. In order to afford their efforts, from 1775 to 1783, America used a variety of methods to pay for the war. The 13 States printed their own money (39%), Congress printed its own money (28%), The 13 States issued their own debt certificates (14%), Congress issued its own debt certificates (10%), Congress received loans from France, Dutch investors, and the Spanish Crown (6%), and Congress sold bonds to wealthy Americans (3%).
There are those Dutch Investors again….
Since none of the money printed was backed by precious metals inflation took over.
Who could have seen that coming?
The debt climbed for all participants in the Revolutionary War.
After the war, in a “Contract Between the King of France and the Thirteen United States of North America”, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782 by Benjamin Franklin and Gravier de Vergennes, in Article I: It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to twenty-one receipts. By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent per annum.
And one year later as part of the (peace) Treaty of Paris 1783 signed by representatives from Britain and Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, the representatives of the Thirteen States, Article 4: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
So, as you can see, even though America won their “independence” in the Revolutionary War, these peace agreements and contracts with Britain and France brought on a heavy debt load to America, payable only in precious metals, and owned by the “creditors” of the war, which were all in bed and dictated by the very same bankers and their powerful friends as mentioned before.
For the bankers, war was no skin off their backs as they then owned, by proxy of debtors, the debts of major nations, including the new and very promising united States of America.
Then From the transcript of the original constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
But here come those bankers…..
In February 1791, the First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) received a unique national charter for twenty years. Alexander Hamilton, Treasurer under George Washington (and huge supporter of the British banking system), helped come up with the idea and convinced Washington to implement a semi-public national bank, which was a crucial component in the building of the early U.S. economy. The term semi-public is used because it in part was funded by private foreign interests-Where have we heard that before?
Dr. Thayer Watkins of San Jose State University claims that 70 percent of the First National Bank was owned by foreigners, and notes that British bankers were the primary source of capital for the U.S during this era. These, again, are the same bankers we spoke about earlier, holding the debts of all participating nations, and they now have physical representation inside the united States of America.
On November 19, 1794 representatives of the United States and Great Britain signed “John Jay’s Treaty”, which sought to settle outstanding issues between the two countries that had been left unresolved since American independence. Jay’s only significant bargaining chip in the negotiations was the threat that the United States would join the Danish and the Swedish governments in defending their neutral status and resisting British seizure of their goods by force of arms. In an attempt to guarantee good relations with Britain, Hamilton independently informed the British leadership that the United States had no intention of joining in this neutral armament. Hamilton’s actions left Jay with little leverage to force the British to comply with U.S. demands. The resulting treaty addressed few U.S. interests, and ultimately granted Britain additional rights. The only concessions Jay obtained was a surrender of the northwestern posts--already agreed to in 1783--and a commercial treaty with Great Britain that granted the United States "most favored nation" status, but seriously restricted U.S. commercial access to the British West Indies. All other outstanding issues--the Canadian-Maine boundary, compensation for pre-revolutionary debts, and British seizures of American ships--were to be resolved by the brand new international arbitration. Jay’s Treaty was immensely unpopular with the American public, but it squeaked through the Senate on a 20 to 10 vote on June 24, 1795. President Washington implemented the treaty in the face of popular disapproval, realizing that it was the price of peace with Great Britain and that it gave the United States valuable time to financially consolidate and rearm in the event of future conflict.
What you essentially witnessed in the last decade+ was the banks’ abilities to extend additional lending opportunities, ensure pay back of war debts, control international revenue through imports and exports, and control international markets of merchant trade all due to the applied pressure of the debts these nations owned from the Seven Years War, the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and soon we will see, the French Revolution, and the War of 1812. With this much interweaving of power they were able to put leverage on critical components of the vitality of nations, and, they, by indirect force, could control the actions of legislatures and governments of nations.
In Part 2, we will discuss French Revolution/Napoleon/The Bank of France, The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, Alexander Hamilton vs Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson and the Insurrection Act of 1807, the 13th Amendment, the non-renewal of the Charter of First National Bank, the War of 1812, The Second National Bank and Andrew Jackson’s war on it, the Run on the Bank of England 1825, Slavery in the Colonies, Abraham Lincoln and Presidential war powers, the Lieber Code, Martial Law, Civil War, the 14th Amendment, The Reconstruction Acts, H.R. 1328 an Act to establish the Department of Justice, and more which will all set the remainder of the stage for “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia” aka “The Act of 1871” that will lead to the full corporatization of the United States of America.
As you might be able to see at this point, if not, you will after Part 2, that this all revolves around the formation of Central Banks in every country with the interweaving help from major corporations, wealthy foreign investors, and other Central Banks seeking to expand their power, money, and control (over humanity).
My research is performed and my work written of my own free-will. My only intent is to provide the truth, connect some dots, and shine a light on some of the previously unknown history of the United States of America and the rest of the world as they relate.
My work will always be free to all readers, no paid subscriptions, but for those that have asked about being able to “tip/donate” here is a link you can do so at the link below.
Tip/Donate: https://ko-fi.com/iet17
References:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/colonization-and-companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Amsterdam
https://otterson.org/thetimes/the-1600s-the-english-civil-war/
https://www.worldhistory.org/James_I_of_England/
https://www.socred.org/images/other-authors/The-Enemy-Within-the-Empire-Short-History-of-Bank-of-England-Eric-Butler.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houblon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/civilwars_timeline_noflash.shtml
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol1/pp453-473
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_France
https://classroom.synonym.com/political-power-british-monarchy-8073.html
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/american-revolution-1763-1783/british-reforms-1763-1766/
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1756?OpenDocument
http://www.stamp-act-history.com/category/timeline/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
https://uscode.house.gov/download/annualhistoricalarchives/pdf/OrganicLaws2012/confederation.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/americanrevolution/timeline.htm
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/how-was-the-revolutionary-war-paid-for/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_costs_of_the_Seven_Years%27_War
http://theamericanhistory.org/1791-american-history-summary.html
https://bit.ly/3LQZZd9
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr-1782.asp
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/14318.htm
We need this kind of teaching back in schools. Along with civics and the constitution 🇺🇸
Great article...big history buff and love to wade thru revisionist nonsense to find real historical fact. Another big deal at this time was the passing of the Judicature Act in 1873, 2 yrs after the act that declared the gov of DC. Judicature act (most countries have one as do provinces and states, it is also akin to a Courts Act that establishes the courts jurisdictions and rules ect) set the stage for the "legal" realm to become supreme. It says it abolished Equity (higher court jurisdiction...look it up Coke v Ellesmere https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterly/article/abs/equity-and-ideas-coke-ellesmere-and-james-i/3BB614C40285423A949A5F3BDF0B5046) rules and procedures but it only set them in another place and enlarged legal land with colorable versions of equity rules that were way more malleable. It was a shame what they did to that court. Bleak House by Dickens was a 1800's hit piece on the Court of Equity. This was an article i posted on the corpratocracy that would have grown from what you lay out in your article.
https://somethoughtsofmine.substack.com/p/technocratic-rule?s=w
Waiting with anticipation for for part II and III.