The Act of 1871, Part 2: 1800's Preface
Setting the Stage
Foreword: 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.
While everyone in the world is consumed with warring over colonization of land, Protestant vs Catholicism, Royal Rule vs Parliamentary Rule, Rich vs Poor, it was the bankers and the goldsmiths patiently waiting in the shadows of their intentions behind their novel idea of banking and credit.
These weren’t wars for the sake of gaining land as the bankers didn’t hold allegiances to borders or flags. Instead, these were economic wars. It mattered not who was ruling, nor where, for all they had to do to take over was take one or more of the uniting core values of a nation and use it to divide its people, then sit back and wait for war to break out. They did this by using the idea of freedom & progression and sowing these seeds into the minds of the oppressed, not because freedom/progression was bad and oppression was good, but because the blind force of a mob was needed to create the necessary civil unrest to topple the authorities in nations, and the fruit of war was the desired and inevitable outcome. War brought large financial costs and burdens to whole nations which set the stage for the creation of State banks controlled by bankers, often foreign, waiting to fund them with credit/loans. These loans, compounded with interest, created the ever increasing debt. The debt was then used to control, with perpetuity, the masses. To the bankers it didn’t matter who made the laws, or had authority in a nation, so long as they had control over that nation’s finances. What’s the Golden Rule? He who has the “gold” makes the rules. Any rulers who disagreed with this plan would find themselves either in war, in recession, or pitted against their people until they were overthrown and replaced with rulers who would capitulate.
Rinse and Repeat.
This occurred in England and worked so well that it was used again on the American Colonies. But why stop there? This will continue, with tweaking where there were mistakes made and learned from, for the next two centuries in virtually every nation on Earth until State/Central banks controlled the economies/wealth/debt and the futures of all of humanity.
Late 1700’s
France, having just fought in the French and Indian War during the American Revolution, as well as their war with England, was in historically massive debt. On August 20th, 1786, the new finance minister Charles de Calonne was appointed. He informed King Louis XVI that France faced bankruptcy. He proposed immediate changes that included a new land tax and stamp duty but The Assembly, a group of high-ranking nobles, ecclesiastics, and state functionaries convened by the King of France on extraordinary occasions to consult on matters of state, opposed them. King Louis XVI fired Calonne and replaced him with Lomenie de Brienne, to win their support. However, by September of 1787, even the Paris Parliament rejected Brienne’s ideas of tax reform— this would lead to the start of the financial and industrial crises in France.
1788- On June 7th, ‘Day of the Tiles’ in Grenoble, a city in France. The first revolt against the king due to the economic crises in France. The people were hungry and being instigated by liberal agent provocateurs to rise up against Louis XVI. After 175 years since the last time it was called, King Louis XVI called a Meeting of the Estates to hear the complaints of the people, and this time included the Third Estate. First Estate are the clergy. Second Estate are the aristocrats/nobility. The Third Estate is everyone else.
1789-1791-An Estates General is called to give the king consent to sort out the finances, but it's been so long since it was called there is room to argue about its form, including whether the three estates can vote equally or proportionally. Instead of bowing to the king the Estates General takes radical action, declaring itself a Legislative Assembly and seizing sovereignty. It starts tearing down the old regime and creating a new France with a constitution. All the while the mob “outside”, encouraged by the mob mentality and further provoked by the Jacobins, aka “Society of the Jacobins, Friends of Freedom and Equality”, a far-left, militant, radicalism group that is anti aristocracy, privilege, and anti-religion, begins their insurrection with attacks on royal officers and widespread looting. (sound familiar?)
August 1789-the Constituent Assembly approved the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen’ draft primarily by Lafayette., whose first article states that “men are born, and all live equal in rights”.
October 1789- Women’s March On Versailles. (sound familiar?)
1789- Royal family flees from Versailles to Paris.
1790-Elimination of civil discrimination against jews and suppression of religious orders and vows in order to move towards a secular state. Louis XVI accepts and inaugurated the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, subordinating the Church to the civil government, which was never taken by Pope Pius VI and other numerous individuals of the French clergy. This created a split between those clergy who swore the required pledge and acknowledged the new arrangement between. The resulting years saw violent oppression of the Church, including the imprisonment and killing of priests all through France.
1790- the French monarchy’s white royal flag and fleur-de-lys is replaced with the Revolution’s tricolor flag (The red, white, and blue flag of today).
1791- King Louis XVI and his family attempted to escape from Paris to reach abroad to start a counter-revolution. But they were noticed on the way and arrested, then forced to return to Paris.
1791- Declaration Of Pillnitz signed by rulers like Roman Emperor Leopold II of Austria and Frederick William II of Prussia on August 27th. This intervention of rulers in French affairs made the statement intending to return freedom and power to the King to strengthen the monarchic government in France. The French people expressed no respect for the dictates of foreign monarchs, and the revolutionary authorities, and the Jacobins declined to accept the demand.
1791- On September 13-14, Louis XVI formally accepts the new Constitution made by Jacobins. The text maintains the Monarchy and grants the right of veto to a king with limited powers. But this compromise wasn’t enough for the Jacobins who began again drumming up the mob for a more republican form of government and for the trial of Louis XVI. On September 28: Slavery was abolished in France but not in the French colonies. Also, French Jews were granted citizenship.
1792- as the Depression worsens, there are food shortages which incite the riots further. The newly formed Legislative declares war on Austria and Prussia and the two countries subsequently invade France. King Louis XVI wants to accept defeat as armies are disorganized but despite that the Jacobins attacked Tuileries Palace where King Louis XVI lived with his family, massacred the Swiss Guard, and arrested King Louis XVI with his family on August 10 on charges of betraying national interests.
1793- after a trial demanded by the Jacobins, they demanded he be sentenced to death stating France can’t begin anew without the death of the King. King Louis XVI was beheaded on January 21st. A Revolutionary court was setup to arrest, try, sentence, and execute anyone they even thought was opposed to the Revolution. Thousands were executed.
1794- The Convention stops officially paying the supported priests and quits managing church properties. Financial support for all forms of religious worship removed.
1795- people and others, in fear of the Jacobin’s plan rise up against them, ban the Jacobin Club, arrest, try and execute the head of the Jacobin Club and the Leader of the Revolutionary Court. French Army captures Amsterdam (ah… the Dutch are back in the picture). By the end of 1795 most of King Louis XVI family was executed.
1796- The Directory is created and put in charge of France. The Directory rules through a series of coups, but it brings a form of peace and a form of accepted corruption, while the armies of France have great success abroad. In fact the armies are so successful some consider using a General to create a new type of government. The Directory appointed Napoleon Bonaparte as General-in-Chief commander of the French army in Italy. Napoleon goes on a very successful military campaign.
1797- in a new election the Royalists wedge out The Directory. Directory wants a coup d’état and seeks military assistance.
1799- The beginning of legislative elections in France to replace one-third of members results in a major loss to The Directory but still favorable to a constitutional change. The Directory seeks Napoleon to help with a coup, aiming to use him as a figurehead. They picked the wrong person, as Napoleon seizes power for himself, ending the Revolution and consolidating some of its reforms into what would become an empire by finding a way to bring huge numbers of previously opposed people into line behind him.
1800- The France national debt, already at perilous levels, had surmounted even further beyond anything fathomable at the time. Some very wealthy bankers were deeply involved in the agitations (Jacobins) leading up to the French Revolution. When the revolutionary violence got out of hand, they were the ones who orchestrated the rise of Napoleon, whom they regarded as the “restorer of order”. As a reward for their support, Napoleon, in 1800, gave the private bankers a monopoly over French finance by giving them control of the new Bank of France.
ALL OF THAT NONSENSE, Monarchy vs Parliament, Catholic vs Protestant, The Directory vs The Royalists, Left vs Right, etc. and it turns out it was the Jacobins and the bankers that were the ones responsible for it. They were also the ones who restored order with Napoleon—none of it mattered. It was ALL just to get the Bank of France set up.
>DOES ANY OF THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
Before then, during then, and after then— the plan has always been the same. Create division across a nation’s strongholds, incite the mob to be anti-authoritarian, drive financial crises, overthrow the government, and then from the rubble install a private bank responsible for lending money to their new government. WOW.
1800’s
More of the French Revolution will continue to play out in the 1800’s including in 1830 to remove the King and put in a new king and a constitutional monarchy, 1848 to remove the monarchy entirely and become a republic, and 1870 failed socialist revolution involving the beliefs of Karl Marx.
Bringing you “across the pond” but continuing on the timeline we will cover some events that will be necessary to know as the 1800’s play out.
Some political terms you will need to know the definition of:
Tory/Tories: During the American Revolution they were pro British control, didn’t want Independence, and wanted more social order. They were also called Loyalists. Remember the Tories in England were pro-monarchy power.
Whigs: During the American Revolution they were anti British control, wanted Independence, and more liberal rights. Remember the Whigs in England were pro-Parliament power.
Federalists: who followed Alexander Hamilton’s beliefs (remember he’s all about Britain and their system). They believe in a federal government with federal men that have more power. They also support Impost of 1783 which gives Congress the power to tax the States.
Republicans/Antifederalists: who followed Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs. They believe in more of a Republic where the States have the power, but are also united. They are against Impost of 1783 which gives Congress the power to tax the States.
From there, the political parties and their identities become convoluted as you can see in the images below:
This information about identifying political parties is not necessarily provided so that you can align your bias to the article with “good guys” and “bad guys”. After all, George Washington didn’t align himself with any political party (there was one party -American) and even in his farewell address to the nation, Washington continued to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the country as a whole. These warnings are given in the context of the rise of two opposing parties within the government—the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party.
This information is provided so that you can see that the purpose of the multiparty system was to create division. As we all know from before, and you will see later, bad actors (guided by malevolent secret societies) with nefarious intentions seek to gain control for behind-the-scenes bankers, and are willing to play both sides to do it. Divide and conquer is the name of the game.
As well, the purpose of this article is not to provide the details of the in’s and out’s of secret societies, nor is it to identify their specific roles and actions, as that evidence is hard to come by and further verify its authenticity, is filled with conspiracy theory that will deter the normies from realizing its validity, and isn’t necessary to prove the point this article is trying to make.
Rather, the purpose is to show you, on public record, what happened, when it happened, and how it happened. But for the record, let it be known that George Washington, accused at the time of being a leading Freemason, did indeed acknowledge the presence of secret societies, and to some extent the benevolence and/or malevolence thereof, in TWO letters found in the Library of Congress written by George Washington. Please click this link and this link to see both letters in the LOC.
The first letter states, and I quote:
*To REVEREND G. W. SNYDER
Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798.
“Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book(8) you had the goodness to send me.
I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.(9) The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.”
8. Proofs of a Conspiracy &c, by John Robison.
9. In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book “gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of ‘Illuminati,’ whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural.”
The second letter states, and I quote:
*To REVEREND G. W. SNYDER
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Iluminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more fully satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or the pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). With respect I am &c.”
Just from this letter we can arrive at several relatively safe assumptions if we put faith in George Washington’s word and intent as the United States of America’s first president.
Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jacobins are names of real secret societies.
Freemasons at some point had benevolent intentions.
Freemasons were being infiltrated by the malevolent Illuminati and Jacobins.
The Illuminati and the Jacobins are either the same, a part of one another, in relationship, or, at the very least, agreeable.
Further noted: In 1688 England's pro-Catholic Stuart king, James II, was deposed by his Dutch son-in-law, the Protestant William of Orange. James - whose name in Latin was Jacobus, hence the name Jacobites - fled to France. There he continued to be supported by Freemasons in Scotland and Wales who sought to restore him to the English throne. They were accused by French Freemasons of converting Masonic rituals and titles into political support for this restoration. According to some versions of Masonic history, James was ensconced in the Chateau of Saint-Germain by his friend, French King Louis XIV where he established a system of Masonry that became known as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. (If you will recall, William of Orange, after assuming the throne, helped initiate the Bank of England.)
Jacobites were right-winged and argued monarchs were appointed by God, or divine right, and could not be removed. They are associated with early Freemasonry and, in particular, the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
Jacobins were left-winged and argued that the people should be in control, without religious interference, and that the Parliamentary rule was superior to monarch rule. A Jacobin can be described as an ardent or republican supporter of a centralized and revolutionary democracy or state.
The two, Jacobites and Jacobins, are considered antithetical to one another.
The Illuminati was founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776 in Bavaria (Germany) after, as a non-clerical professor at a Jesuit institution, he became anti-clerical and enthralled in the ideals of “Enlightenment”. The Illuminati was outlawed through edict by Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, with the encouragement of the Catholic Church, in 1784, 1785, 1787, and 1790.
Takeaway: The first president of the United States of America is recognizing that there may be a diabolical conspiracy of Jacobins and Illuminati to infiltrate the Freemasons in America, many of which are Founding Fathers.
That will be as far as we go with delving into secret societies from here, but officially they are on record at the Library of Congress.
Now that we have some terminology and background, let’s move forward on the timeline so we can better understand what was happening at the time.
The Residence Act of 1790 gave Congress until 1800, when the government moved to the Federal City, to decide what form its exclusive jurisdiction over the seat of the federal government, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, would take, or if the right would be exercised at all. In his 22 Nov. 1800 address to Congress, President Adams reminded the legislators “to consider whether the local powers over the district of Columbia” vested in them by the Constitution should be “immediately exercised.” The Federalists in Congress decided in the affirmative.
Approved 27 Feb. 1801, the “Act concerning the District of Columbia,” later known as the Organic Act, divided the Federal District into Alexandria and Washington counties and set up a court system for both, to which the president appointed officers, including U.S. judges, a marshal and attorney, and justices of the peace. **In Congress, the Federalists approved and the Republicans did not.** On 10 Feb. 1803, Virginia congressman Philip R. Thompson introduced another bill for “establishing the Government of the Territory of Columbia.” The legislature included not one but two chambers, a senate and house of representatives, and the position of governor was eliminated, with the executive power instead “vested in the President of the United States.”
No surprise there. The Federalists wanted to federalize the union and the Republicans wanted to keep the power with the states away from a central government. Either way, the Federalists were able to pass the legislation and Washington DC became the new home of the United States central government.
Speaking of Federalists, let’s look at Alexander Hamilton, who played a huge role in the founding of America as well as its political spectrum. But for this part of the article we are going to be focusing on what led up to his famous duel with Aaron Burr.
December 23, 1778, he served second to a Lt. Colonel dueling a Major General who cast aspersions on the character of George Washington. The General was wounded and the rest of the duel was called off.
The following year Hamilton challenged Dr. William Gordon, a Congregational Baptist clergyman in Jamaica Plains, Massachusetts, on the ground that Gordon had made insulting remarks about Hamilton’s political views to Francis Dana (Federalist). Duel was never fought because Gordon refused.
July 1795, Commodore James Nicholson accused Hamilton of being an “Abettor of Tories” which provoked Hamilton to challenge the duel. The dispute was settled without a duel.
In 1797 James Thomson Callender published his accusation that Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, had engaged in improper speculations with James Reynolds. Hamilton asked James Monroe, to whom he had explained his relationship with Maria and James Reynolds as early as 1792, to affirm unequivocally his belief in Hamilton’s version of the “Reynolds Affair.” When Monroe refused, Hamilton replied with an equivocal challenge to a duel. Monroe remained adamant and selected Burr as his second. Although the duel was averted, no evidence has been found concerning the settlement of the dispute.
Hamilton seemingly had a love affair with the idea of dueling, rather than the actual dueling itself. Before this time, he used it as more of a threat as opposed to an actual means to resolution….up until he ran into problems with Aaron Burr. Burr and Hamilton were political opponents; Burr a Republican and Hamilton a Federalist, who frequently clashed on politics. Before 1800 Burr viewed Hamilton as nothing other than a political opponent and a respected colleague at the bar. On the other hand, Hamilton looked with deep distrust, and even distaste, on Burr. The final political confrontation between Burr and Hamilton occurred during the New York gubernatorial election of 1804. Once again there was considerable Federalist sentiment for Burr, who was then Vice President, but Hamilton supported Republican John Lansing, Jr., who accepted and then declined the nomination. Hamilton then urged Federalists to vote for Lansing’s replacement, Morgan Lewis. (weird, right? Isn’t Hamilton a Federalist and Burr a Republican?) Lewis defeated Burr, and it was apparently after this election that Hamilton made the alleged defamatory statement that led to the duel. After Burr lost the election, his political career was in shambles and Thomas Jefferson wasn’t giving him a second shot at vice president. Burr challenged Hamilton to the duel and the two met in Weehawken, New Jersey in 1804 to settle the score. Upon commencement of the duel, we do know for a fact that Burr shot Hamilton in the stomach and hit his spinal cord, but after that everything in history gets hairy. Hamilton’s “second” in the duel (backup) swears that Hamilton aimed his pistol at the sky and fired as to throw away his shot. But Burr’s “second” in the duel swears that Hamilton fired high AND early forcing Burr to return fire. Hamilton died the next day of his wounds and Burr would be charged by New Jersey with murder.
All of that sounds mighty suspicious and conflicting stories always suggest to me that there was something else missing to complete the understanding of these events. It would come up again here in 3 years.
In 1804 , while still in office as Vice President, Burr contacted Britain’s Minister to the United States and offered to help Britain take Western territory from the United States, and that he wanted money and ships to carry out his conquest. (Wait- wasn’t he a Republican? Why is he contacting Britain?) In 1805, Burr, apparently disgruntled by his failures in politics, set west towards the Mississippi with his eye on the Territory of Louisiana, which was largely unsettled, enlisting a number of supporters along the way towards New Orleans, including General James Wilkinson, commander in chief of the US Army, with alleged plans to attack Texas or Mexico in the name of US sovereignty where Burr could declare himself ruler of the conquered lands. Rumors of his plot/scheme spread throughout the US and multiple times he was called by the courts to answer for treason charges — each time acquitted.
President Thomas Jefferson, who had learned of Burr’s plans but didn’t believe the Constitution allowed him to use the US Military against citizens, instead decided to send a strongly worded message to Congress on December 2, 1806:
“Having recieved information that in another part of the US. a great number of private individuals, were combining together, arming & organising themselves contrary to law to carry on a military expedition against the territories of Spain I thought it necessary by proclamation, as well as by special orders, to take measures for preventing & suppressing this enterprize, for siezing the vessels, arms & other means provided for it, & for arresting & bringing to justice it’s authors & abettors. These measures are now in operation. It was due to the good faith which ought ever to be the rule of action in public as well as in private transactions, it was due to good order & regular govmt. that while the public force was acting strictly on the defensive, and merely to cover our citizens from aggression, the criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of Peace or War, & by commencing active & unauthorised (sic) hostilities, should be promptly & effectually suppressed.”
Jefferson’s opponents, the Federalists, mocked the proclamation and the message to Congress. “Federalists and even some Republicans quietly suggested that “the People ought not to have been alarmed or more [energetic] measures taken.” The media even mocked Jefferson as well. Appearing in a number of Federalist newspapers in early January 1807, “A Speck of War: or, The Good Sense of the People of the Western Country” rooted Jefferson’s policies in his belief “THAT THE GREAT SECRET OF GOVERNMENT IS TO LET EVERYTHING TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.” The likely outcome the journalist suggested, was that Burr would seize New Orleans, fortify it, and make it the capital of a new western empire that would soon “be as strong as ourselves.”” They were essentially calling Jefferson a wimp for not taking more decisive action against Burr. Even without a specific law, Federalists insisted, the government had “the power & of course the means [for] preventing any insurrection or enterprize on the public peace or safety”. In fact, Jefferson and most Republicans believed otherwise, rejecting the common-law view that the United States’s mere existence as a country sufficed to make some acts illegal. They argued, instead, that the Constitution granted only limited and specific powers to the federal government. It defined treason, for example, but did not make either conspiring to commit treason or preparing to commit treason a crime.”
Either way, despite the confusing and lack of specific details regarding what would become to be known as the “Burr Conspiracy”, the end result was achieved, and to me, that was all that mattered.
Thomas Jefferson, on December 19, 1806, enclosed a copy of a bill on insurrections in a letter to John Dawson. It read:
A Bill authorising the emploiment of the land or Naval forces of the US. in cases of insurrection.
The insurrection bill became law on March 3, 1807, eleven days after Burr was arrested in Alabama on February 19 after turning himself in when a New Orleans newspaper published evidence of his “treason” and a reward for his capture, so it was never put to use.
But now, the US Congress had made a law called the Insurrection Act of 1807, and it would be put to use later, specifically by Abraham Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War, and because of this Act many of the future events in our nation would come to fruition. More on this in “Part 3”.
In the meantime, Congress, not entirely full of “agents” yet, and many good men actually working for the benefit of America, recognized that there were some problems within the nation, specifically the control of the nation’s finances (foreign bankers’ controlling interests), and that Nobility (foreign control) and Lawyers(legalese trickery) were allowed to be Congressmen and influence policy. Two major events occurred over the next several years.
The proposal of the (real) 13th Amendment (1810)
Congress’ decision on renewing the Charter of the First Bank of America (1811)
13th Amendment: In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does: they hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America. Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility". Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the John Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).
Even though there were seventeen proposed amendments to be added to the Constitution in 1789, only twelve passed and they became our Bill of Rights. One of the amendments that wasn’t added in 1789 was the prohibition and penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” aka having belonged to another nation’s interests or influence. (Imagine that not passing the first time).
Later in January 1810, they must’ve wisened up because Senator Reed proposed another amendment:
"Title of Nobility" Amendment
(History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530)
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812.
States that didn’t ratify in this time frame include:
Virginia
New York
South Carolina
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Hold on to this thought; we will be right back to it shortly.
First Bank Charter: If you will remember, one of the chief proponents of a national bank was Alexander Hamilton because he felt it would stabilize and improve the nation's credit. Two of his chief opponents were Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both of whom felt a national bank was unconstitutional and since partially private could be a tool of corruption and self-dealing. They were rightfully concerned as the US national debt grew in the beginning years and the bankers were getting rich off of America’s back.
Well, Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States from 1801-1809 and James Madison was his Secretary of State. James Madison would go on to be the fourth President of the United States from 1809-1817 and they would have much to say about this bank.
In 1791 when the First Bank Charter was granted by Congress the US national debt was $77,227,924.66. By the time Thomas Jefferson became president it had already grown 7.5% to $83,038,050.80, but at the end of his presidency the debt dropped 31% to $57,023,192.09. They wanted to be rid of the debt and be rid of the bank. In 1811, under James Madison, the debt had dropped another 16% to $48,005,587.76 and it came time for Congress to vote on its renewal.
The chief argument in favor of the Bank's renewal in 1811 was that its circulation of about $5 million in paper currency accounted for about 20 percent of the nation's money supply (Symons, 12). It was the closest thing to a national currency that the U.S. had, but the Bank's issuance of notes came at the expense of state banks. In addition, the currency issued by the Bank was not discounted, whereas the currency issued by the 712 state banks were discounted anywhere from 0 to 100 percent. The arguments against the Bank were too strong. Foreign ownership (70%), constitutional questions (the Supreme Court had yet to address the issue), and a general suspicion of banking. The largest complaint was that 70 % of the bank's stock was held by foreign interests, which would have sent millions in specie (money in the form of precious metals instead of bank notes) overseas had the charter been renewed.
In January 1811, both chambers of Congress engaged in a debate on whether to renew. Later that month, the House voted against renewal by just one vote. In February, Gallatin again recommended renewing the Bank’s charter. The Senate vote, however, resulted in a tie. The vice president, George Clinton of New York, cast the tie-breaking vote, and the charter renewal was again defeated by one vote. By the end of 1811 the national debt dropped again to $45,209,737.90.
Apparently the nobility, lawyers, foreign bankers, and investors (British and Dutch respectively) weren’t too pleased with the passing of the 13th Amendment “Titles of Nobility” nor the non-renewal of the First Bank Charter, thus in 1812, war broke out between the UK and America.
The “official story” of the War of 1812:
By June 12, 1812, the US had “declared war on the United Kingdom”. The US believed that its rights as a neutral power were being violated by both Britain and France. The US also resented the superior naval strength and the boarding of US merchant ships by the British navy causing a trade embargo. The "War-Hawks" in the US Congress demanded that the US invade British controlled Canada. Several attempts failed and resulted in Britain blockading the US coast. In 1814 Britain launched and invasion to gain new land. Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England.
By the time the war ended in 1814:
The British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government.
The momentum to ratify the proposed 13th Amendment “Titles of Nobility” was lost in the tumult of war.
The national debt soared from $45,209,737.90 to $99,833,660.15—~110%— and by 1816 reached $127,334,933.74— up 280% from 1812
So what’s the REAL story behind the War of 1812? What did the war REALLY accomplish? When you want to know WHY an event happens all you need to do is look at what the RESULTS were.
January 1814- Congress received a petition signed by 150 businessmen from New York City, urging the legislative body to create a second national bank. In February, and again in November, Calhoun put forth plans to create a bank that would be headquartered in the District of Columbia, but his bills did not pass.
April 1814- President James Madison, who had opposed the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, reluctantly admitted to the need for another national bank to finance the war with Britain.
April 1816- After much debate and a couple of additional attempts, Madison finally signed an act establishing the second Bank of the United States in Philadelphia with another twenty year charter.
November 1816- James Monroe, Republican, was elected president.
Back to the 13th Amendment and its ratification by the States. It currently had 12 states ratify and needed 13 out of the 17 to be added to the Constitution.
December 31, 1817- the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of the 13th Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76)
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.
The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.
BUT……..There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified.
To this day, the federal government never acknowledges the passing of the original 13th Amendment. They concede that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support—One vote.
WHO HERE READING THIS BELIEVES IN COINCIDENCES?
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We were THIS close.
DAMN those warmongering bankers, lawyers, and foreign nobility.
But this war for America’s true freedom was not even close to over yet. Andrew Jackson would soon be elected President in 1828 and the war on the Bank would be ON.
While I was hoping to fit all of the events leading up to 1871, including Andrew Jackson’s war on the Second Bank, the Civil War, Lieber Code, Martial Law, the Reconstruction Acts, HR 1328, and the Act of 1871, I feel like those events deserve an article written specifically for them.
Part 3 will cover all of these and will be one BOOM after another.
**Who said History had to be boring?**
—————————————————————————————————————
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.thoughtco.com/french-revolution-timeline-1221901
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=organic%20act%20of%201801&s=1111311111&sa=&r=5&sr=
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-07-02-0027
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=honors
https://www.martyduren.com/2016/03/04/a-brief-history-on-american-political-parties/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.021/?q=Illuminati&sp=182&st=text
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0201
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/duel-burr-conspiracy/
https://currentpub.com/2020/06/02/the-history-behind-the-insurrection-act-of-1807/
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/2/STATUTE-2-Pg443a.pdf
https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/february/first-bank-united-states-chartered
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/first-bank-of-the-us
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/second-bank-of-the-us
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/the-missing-13th-amendment/titles-of-nobility.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/the-missing-13th-amendment/what-if.php
This is pomeroy referenced in a Suit in the 1980's from florida. It speaks to how many times "Equity" authorities were used to press an "equitable remedy" and using therefore exclusively "equity jurisprudence". Law schools stopped teaching on Equity in any substantive amounts, certainly not having whole law schools dedicated to Equity as it should be...they hid it from our eyes and set legal land "colorable" law...when we only need black and white equity jurisdiction and know how to NOT press an legal matter in court...."In the preface to the first edition of his text book on Equity Jurisprudence in May, 1881, Professor John Norton Pomeroy was greatly concerned about the disastrous consequences of the then tendency to abolish the external distinctions between actions at law and actions in equity, the union of legal and equitable rights and remedies in one proceeding and the substitution of legal and equitable methods. Perhaps history will note that the rise and decline of Equity as a separate and distinct body of substantive law in Florida as paralleling the frequency with which reported Florida cases referred to Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence over the decades, which is illustrated as follows: 1890's — 1; 1900's — 3; 1910's — 5; 1920's — 11; 1930's — 40; 1940's — 28; 1950's — 24; 1960's — 23; 1970's — 9; 1980's — 4 to date, with this opinion being the fifth. Similarly, cases citing Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (1884) are as follows: 1900's — 1; 1910's — 0; 1920's — 1; 1930's — 5; 1940's — 2; 1950's — 2; 1960's — 0; 1970's — 2; 1980's — 1 to date with this opinion being the second." http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14180904361479507772&q=Hutchens&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_ylo=1988&as_yhi=1989 This was definately a HUGE move by the CROWN to keep us away from a better jurisidiction that is NOT MEANT FOR CORPORATIONS.
Fantastic article/history lesson!!
Nicely laid out. Well done.
Now if part 3 doesnt cover past 1932, ignore the rest of this comment.
If part 3 does cover historical events of 1933 and beyond, then you should consider this
piece of information, which the Puppetmasters have made illegal in Europe.
Its a documentary that had me up all night bc I would pause and research what was said and then watch some more, and then pause and so on.
Its called: The Greatest Story Never Told (TGSNT)
I cant imagine a more shocking video. The last 2 years of Covid & Q dont even come close to as shocking as this. Adrenochrome is not as shocking as this.
The avalanche of truth is gaining momentum and size.
Hold on to your butts.