Friday, September 18, 2009

The Creature from Jekyll Island

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln warned:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign…until wealth is aggregated into few hands, and the republic is destroyed.”

John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City declared on March 22, 1911:
“The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like an octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state, and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as ‘international bankers.’”

Dr. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University made the following comments in his book "Tragedy and Hope":
He said, “it is quite impossible to understand the history of the twentieth century without some understanding of the role played by money in domestic affairs and foreign affairs…”

Quigley quotes Walter Rathenau who controlled German General Electric Company who stated in 1909:
“Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”

Furthermore, Quigley declares:
“The power of investment bankers over government rests on a number of factors, of which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes (such as monthly rents, annual mortgage payments, and weekly wages), so a government has to go to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts. As experts in government bonds, the international bankers not only handled the necessary advances but provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied periods to deal with special problems…"

In 1865 Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared,
“‘The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.’”

The early machinations of this ruling elite is summarized by Quigley:
“The history of the last century slows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally.”

He openly identifies the banking families of which he is speaking: Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Morgan.

During the period between 1880 and 1933; the tycoons of “Big Banking” and “Big Business” were established in America into:
“two pinnacles of economic power, of which one, centered in New York, was headed by J. P. Morgan and Company, and the other, in Ohio, was headed by the Rockefeller family. When these two cooperated, as they generally did, they could influence the economic life of the country to a large degree and could almost control its political life, at least on the Federal level.”

The earliest mammoth banking family empire was founded by Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 – 1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. One of his five sons remained in Frankfurt to administrate the home base while the other four sons established banks in London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples.
Quigley states, the “male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces.” This policy was followed “to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers.”

Economist Stuart Crane explains how the family amassed a fortune financing governments during the 19th Century.
“If you look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power.’ With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”

According to Gustavus Myers in "History of the Great American Fortunes" , in 1836, President Andrew Jackson abolished the Central Bank, through which the Rothschilds were exerting their control.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was approached by August Belmont, an agent of the Rothschild family in the North. Lincoln refused their exorbitant rate of interest to finance the Union. He ordered the Treasury Department to print $450 million “greenbacks.” Greenbacks are legal tender "United States Notes" which are interest free. Lincoln wisely decided that the Union would owe the money to itself. The Erlanger family was the agent of the Rothschild family in the South. Incidentally, the last president to issue "United States Notes" was John F. Kennedy.

International bankers cloaked their goals and ideals with a garment of a “righteous cause” at the close of the 19th Century. According to Dr. Quigley; in 1870, John Ruskin became professor of fine arts at Oxford University and hit Oxford “like an earthquake.”

Pat Brooks declares:
“Ruskin expounded the moral duty of a privileged ruling class [of England] to extend socialistic reform to the underprivileged of the world.”

Carroll Quigley declares: “He told them that they were the possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world…Ruskin’s message had a sensational impact. His inaugural lecture was copied out in longhand by undergraduate Cecil Rhodes, who kept it with him for thirty years…With financial help from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as DeBeers Consolidated Gold Fields. In the middle of the 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year (then about five million dollars) which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account. These purposes centered on his desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all habitable portions of the world under their control.”

Cecil Rhodes and journalist – reformer William T Stead organized a secret society on February 5, 1891. Rhodes was the leader while Stead, Bret (Lord Escher) , and Alfred (Lord) Milner were the executive committee. Alfred (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey and others became the ‘Circle of Initiates.’ Originally, the outer circle was known as “Association of Helpers” and was reorganized by Milner as the “Round Table.”

Milner was governor-general and high commissioner of South Africa. He recruited like minded men from Oxford idealists who became known as Milner’s Kindergarten and existed until 1910. Semi-secret Round Table groups were organized by these idealists in British dependencies and the United States. As of 1976, eight of these groups still exist. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) was founded by them in 1919. Sir Abe Baily and the Astor family, who owned The Times, supported the RIIA.

Colonel Edward Mandel House, companion and advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, hosted a meeting of Round Table representatives in Paris 13 days after the Versailles Treaty was presented to the Plenary Committee. The American branch of the Round Table was organized as a separate entity on May 19, 1919. Colonel House wrote the charter of the Council on Foreign Relations by 1921.

The Institute of Pacific Relations, a similar network of organizations, was established in twelve countries of the Pacific region after 1925.
Dr. Quigley states that in these there were:
“units in each British dominion existing on an interlocking basis with the Round Table Group and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the same country.”

A network of international bankers brought about two horrendous changes into America long before the CFR and the IPR were created. J.P Morgan precipitated the “Panic of 1907” after spreading rumors that Knickerbocker Bank and Trust Company of America was insolvent. Morgan’s rival banks were ruined while other banks were brought into Morgan’s influence and control. Paul Warburg came to American with his brother Felix Warburg in 1902. Paul Warburg was vice-president of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and engineered a central banking system. Warburg used the Panic of 1902 to emphasize the “need” for a central banking system. Morgan promoted the panic for his own selfish economic interests as Warburg promoted the need for “bank reform” by lecturing and writing on the subject. He received a salary of half a million dollars from Kuhn Loeb while writing and lecturing to promote “bank reform” and a “central banking system” he engineered. Warburg had United States Senator Nelson Aldrich, “Morgan’s floor broker in the Senate,” working toward their goals. Nelson Aldrich’s daughter Abby married John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Consequently, Nelson Aldrich was the grandfather of David Rockefeller; chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations, president of Chase Manhattan Bank, and founder of the Trilateral Commission. David Rockefeller’s brother Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was vice-president of the United States in 1976.

Nelson Aldrich worked tirelessly to create a revived “central bank” which President Andrew Jackson destroyed. He was the Republican “whip” in the Senate and chairman of the National Monetary Commission. The NMC was a special committee of Congress created for the purpose of making recommendations to Congress for banking reform legislation. The American public was concerned about what was happening in the banking industry. Banks were folding and people were losing their investments through broken promises banks made to protect depositor’s assets. Aldrich spent over $300,000 of taxpayer’s money to fulfill the aspirations and goals of international bankers. Americans were concerned about the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few large New York Banks on Wall Street. In those days, the concentration of wealth in a few large banks was termed “the money trust.” Various politicians had been elected to office on their campaign promise to break the grasp of “the money trust.” President Woodrow Wilson was among the politicians who campaigned on this issue but was actually hand-picked, financed, and surrounded by associates and advisors of “the money trust.” The public wasn’t aware of this at that time in history. One who campaigned against the money trust could most assuredly be elected. Aldrich was an important business associate of J.P. Morgan and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller Jr.

In November of 1910, a secret meeting of the Morgan - Rockefeller banking officers was held at a social club on Jekyll Island, Georgia. This was a social club and it was called "The Jekyll Island Club." Walk through the downstairs corridors and you will discover a door which identified with a brass plaque that declares: "In this room the Federal Reserve System was created."

Senator Nelson Aldrich sent his private railroad car to the railroad station in New Jersey and there it was in readiness for the arrival of himself and six other men who were told to come under conditions of great secrecy.
Secretary of the Treasury Abraham Piatt Andrew was the second most important man at the meeting. He later became a congressman with important internal ties to banking circle.

Frank A. Vanderlip was President of National City Bank of New York which was the largest bank in America. Vanderlip represented the banking and financial interests of William Rockefeller and international investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Vanderlip represented the largest most powerful banks in America.

Henry P. Davidson was the senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company. Incidentally, for those persons acquainted with the game “Monopoly;” the little fat capitalist with the handlebar mustache and cigar was a satirical caricature of J.P. Morgan.

Charles D. Norton was the President of the 1st National Bank of New York.

Benjamin Strong was head of J.P. Morgan’s Banker’s Trust Company. Three years later when the Federal Reserve Act was passed; Strong became the first head of the Federal Reserve System.

Paul M. Warburg was born in Germany and immigrated to America becoming a naturalized citizen. He was probably the most important man at the meeting because of his European banking knowledge. Paul M. Warburg was one of the wealthiest men in the world during the era in which he lived. Warburg was a partner in Kuhn Loeb & Company and also represented the interests of the banking dynasty of Rothschild family of England and France. Paul Warburg maintained close working relationship with the Rothschild’s throughout his entire career. His brother and closest liaison, Max Warburg was head of Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands. Persons familiar with the syndicated comic strip “Little Orphan Annie” recognize that “Daddy Warbucks” in the infamous comic strip is a satirical caricature of Paul M. Warburg. Everyone in that era was aware of the satirical caricature.

These seven men created the Federal Reserve System and represented ¼ of the entire wealth of the world.

An article written by Frank Vanderlip, a member of the group who attended the meeting, was published in "Saturday Evening Post", February 9, 1935, after the ratification of the Federal Reserve Act.
"I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness attached to the rear-end of a train to the south. Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. We addressed one another as Ben, Paul, Nelson and Abe. Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises abandoning our first names. On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville after those two aviation pioneers the Wright brothers. The servants and train crew may have known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all and it was the names of all printed together that would've made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery we knew simply must not happen."

They received the following instructions:

Should they arrive at the station at the same time they were to pretend that they didn’t know each other.

Newspaper reporters might recognize them and ask question so they were instructed to avoid them at all costs. Suspicions would certainly arise if two or three of them were identified which would provoke questions.

One of the men carried a large black case that contained a shotgun. In the event that he might be questioned; he would respond by saying he was going on a duck hunting trip. We learn from his biography that he neither owned the gun nor ever fired a gun in his life. He borrowed the gun to aid in his deception.

Servants on board were not to know the identity of the guests on board the train. There was fear that servants might talk about the excursion which may be leaked to the press.

The seven men traveled for two days and a night aboard Aldrich’s private car traveling a journey of 1,000 miles to Brunswick, Georgia. They took a ferry across the inland straits arriving on Jekyll Island. For the next nine days they sat at a table in an a closed room to discuss the details of what became the Federal Reserve System. After they accomplished their objective; they returned to New York.
Why the all of these particular elements to maintain secrecy? What was wrong with a group of private bankers attending meetings to discuss economics and proposed banking legislation?

Vanderlip, who attended the secret meeting, explains the reason and provides the answer to the puzzling behavior.
"If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress."

The purpose of the National Monetary Commission was to propose legislation to break the grip of “the money trust.” Aldrich was the chairman of the committee to propose appropriate legislation to break “the money trust.” The Aldrich bill was the purported legislation that was to break the grip of the money trust. The men whom Aldrich assembled at Jekyll Island were “the money trust.” Had this fact been known from the outset; the Federal Reserve System would not exist today. Vanderlip said the proposed legislation would have had no chance to be passed into law by Congress. Therefore, it was essential for their secret to remain a secret and continues to remain so to this day.

Anybody could go to a library and discover the truth but truth isn’t taught in the classrooms of our schools and universities.
Edward Griffin states: “We don't know any of this in the official literature from the Federal Reserve System because that was like asking the fox to build the henhouse and install the security system.”

The creation of the Federal Reserve System in secrecy by “the Money trust” is very important. Here were the giants of their era: J.P Morgan, the Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the Rothschilds and Warburgs which were the major competitors in the field of investment and banking.

Normally, they would be competing against each other for dominance in New York, Paris, and London and in every financial market throughout the world. These competitors were sitting at a table making an agreement of some sort.
In this era of American history an extremely significant fundamental change in ideology was happening in business.

In the past, American free enterprise competition had been operating under the principles of private enterprise which caused America to surpass all other nations. At this point of history, a shift begins to happen; American free enterprise was departing from competition to monopoly. This is the era of the cartel. Throughout the fifteen year period prior to the secret meeting on Jekyll Island; investment groups were coming together engaging in joint ventures rather than competitive ventures. The Jekyll Island meeting was the culmination of trends where they came together deciding not to compete but to form a cartel.

The Aldrich bill establishing the Federal Reserve System was introduced in the Senate of the United States Congress.

“Colonel” Edward Mandel House is regarded by some historians as the real president during Wilson’s administration. “Colonel” House was Wilson’s chief advisor and confidant who guided the creation of the Federal Reserve System and graduated income tax into national policy.

The bill did not pass because the connections between Aldrich and the bankers were so obvious. The Morgan – Rockefeller – Kuhn, Loeb banking interests did not surrender their ambitions. Morgan backed ex-President Theodore Roosevelt; thus making the presidential election a three – way race for the incumbent William Howard Taft who opposed the Aldrich bill. The Progressive Party was a front to split the Republican vote which would assure Taft’s defeat. Consequently, Woodrow Wilson was elected president who, “for nearly twenty years…had moved in the shadow of Wall Street.”

The 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution was adopted on February 3, 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress on December 22 while many of the Senators were on Christmas recess.

Both, the “centralized bank” and “graduated income tax” are planks of Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto.
Cartel: “It is a group of independently owned businesses which come together for the purpose of reducing or eliminating competition between themselves to enhance their profit margin or to secure their positions in the market. They do this by various means one of which is price fixing--no competition on price.”

One might divide a nation into regions of the north and south. One may produce the “gizmo” and another may produce the “widget” and they choose not to compete; perhaps even sharing patents and processes. Consequently, they eliminate competition between themselves. Layer upon layer of agreements are added which encase themselves in a cartel structure “insofar as the market is concerned even though within that grouping [they] are separately owned.”

This is as true for banking cartels as it is with any other industry. Hence, the nature of the Federal Reserve System, when examined in the historical setting, is that it is a cartel even though is masquerades as a government agency protected by unconstitutional law.

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (1859 -1924) was the father of the famous aviator and a Congressman (R-MN). Congressman Lindbergh declared in his book "Banking and Currency and the Money Trust", 1913:
“The Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.”

The Federal Reserve Cartel has been dangerously operating as lava tubes beneath the surface of the ground in Hawaii; carefully concealed from the American citizen. Occasionally, a hole will break open to the surface of the earth and one can actually see rivers of lava flowing a few feet beneath one’s feet.

The third ingredient is the most important when we realize that the cartel is in partner ship with government. Cartels need the force of law to enforce upon the citizen, the agreements of the cartel. When partnerships are formed there must be benefits to the parties.

We must examine in detail the mechanism by which the Federal Reserve “creates” money. Griffin calls the mechanism the “Mandrake Mechanism” named for the comic-book character of the 1940s. Mandrake could create something out of nothing; wave his cape and it would return into the void.

The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
The Federal Reserve System is a cartel operating against the public interest.
The Federal Reserve System utilizes the supreme instrument of usury.
The Federal Reserve System generates the most unfair tax.
The Federal Reserve System encourages war.
The Federal Reserve System destabilizes the economy.

I enumerate the fruits of these two titanic policy changes over the past several decades till 1976:

Two world wars!
Two Asian wars!
A financial crash!
A great depression!
Numerous recessions!
Incurable inflation!
An unconstitutional direct unapportioned confiscatory tax!
Loss of incentive for free enterprise not in the orbit of multinationals!
Subversion of government bureaucracies, Congress, and the Executive branch staff!
Radicalized Supreme Court decisions!
Liberal bias in the media!
Tax-free foundations fund and airing information favorable to socialism and world government!

Once American ship of state sailed through the gate she has been listing to the left ever since.

European Enlightenment - not a Primary Influence

In 1688, the political changes that occurred in England were bloodless. I do not discount earlier civil wars in England; but the decisive change that occurred in England in 1688 was bloodless. Secular historians have recorded this era as the “Bloodless Revolution of 1688”

William III and Mary became the monarchs of England during the “bloodless revolution.” It became clearly evident that Parliament was not merely a junior partner but an equal partner with the Crown. The “bloodless revolution” brought about deliberate control of the monarchy within specific legal bounds.

The French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) was known as the “Father of the Enlightenment.” Voltaire was profoundly influenced by the results of the “bloodless revolution” while he was exiled to England (1726 – 1729).

Voltaire publically expressed the ensuing freedom of public expression and the impact of the Bloodless Revolution. In his “Letters Concerning the English Nation” (1733) he wrote:

“The English are the only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of Kings by resisting them, and who, by a series of struggles, have at last established…that wise government where the prince is all powerful to do good, and at the same time is restrained from committing evil…and where the people share in the government without confusion.”

Voltaire’s remarks were flattering but contrast the impact of the Bloodless Revolution with the terrible conditions in France. When the French attempted to reproduce English conditions, which Voltaire admired, without the Reformation base, the results of Voltaire’s Enlightenment base produced a bloodbath! A rapid breakdown of society eventually led to the authoritarian rule of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821). These five words sum up the Utopian dream of the Enlightenment: reason, nature, happiness, progress, and liberty.

Please understand that when I speak of “humanism;” I am neither referring to being humanitarian nor the study of the “humanities.” I use the term “humanism” as the Greek philosopher Protagoras declared: “Man is the measure of all things.”

The humanistic elements which rose during the Renaissance came to high tide during the Enlightenment. During the Enlightenment; Man started from himself absolutely. The humanist elements which were present in the Renaissance stand in astute contrast to the Reformation.

The Enlightenment was the total antithesis of the Reformation. The Enlightenment and the Reformation stood for and upon absolutely different things in an absolute way.

The Reformation and the Enlightenment produced different results.

Men of the Enlightenment believed that society and mankind were perfectible. Even during the height of the “Reign of Terror” men of the Enlightenment continued to believe in this romanticism. Voltaire sketched out four epochs of history; believing that the era in which he lived was the zenith.

Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) mathematician and member of Voltaire’s circle of philosophers wrote "Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind" (1793 – 1794). He hid in a garret in Paris and spoke of nine stages of progress while hiding from Robespierre’s secret police.

Marquis de Condorcet declared: “We have witnessed the development of a new doctrine which is to deliver the final blow to the already tottering structure of prejudice. It is the idea of the limitless perfectibility of the human species…”

He escaped from Paris but was recognized, arrested, and imprisoned; dying in custody as he waited for death on the guillotine.

If the men of the Enlightenment were religious men; they were deists. Deists believe in a god who created the world but had no further contact with the world at the moment. Their god did not reveal truth to men and if he existed the Deist believed that he was silent.

Voltaire demanded no speech from God except after the earthquake which occurred in Lisbon in 1755. Illogically, he complained of his non-intervention. The deists of the Enlightenment, particularly in France, had no foundation but their own finiteness.

England, profoundly influenced by the Reformation, had a Christian base. The French men of the Enlightenment looked across the English Channel trying to reproduce English conditions but without the Reformation base.

The consequences of their position ended with a massacre and the authoritarian rule of Napoleon.

The first phase of the liberal bourgeois plan of the French Revolution was at its zenith in June of 1789.

The liberal bourgeois plan was depicted by Jacques-Louis David (1748 – 1825) in his painting "The Oath of the Tennis Court". The members of the national assembly swore to establish a new constitution. A pure humanist theory of rights was the foundation which they consciously embraced. On August 26, 1789, the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" was issued by the national assemble.

It had nothing on which to rest, no sufficient foundation but their limited finiteness.

The “Supreme Being” referred to in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, was actually “the sovereignty of the nation.” This “sovereignty of the nation” was the general will of the people.

There was not only a sharp contrast between the French Revolution and the English “Bloodless Revolution.” There was an astute difference with what the Declaration of Independence produced in thirteen colonies that became the United States.

The American Revolution had a Reformation base; the French Revolution did not.

The National Constituent Assembly took two years to draft a constitution (1789 – 1791). Within a year it was DEAD. The Second French Revolution was now in motion which led to the “Reign of Terror.” During the Second French Revolution; the revolutionary leaders themselves were hunted down and killed.

The French revolutionaries made their position apparent. They changed the calendar calling the year 1792 the year “one.” They destroyed several things of the past; even suggesting the destruction of the Cathedral of Chartres. In Notre Dame of Paris, the Cathedral of Chartres and other churches throughout the nation; the French revolutionaries proclaimed the goddess of Reason. In Paris, the actress Demoiselle Candeille, personifying the goddess, was carried shoulder high into the cathedral by men dressed as Romans.

The men of the Enlightenment in France threw aside the Christian base and heritage which produced the English conditions they admired. They looked back to the old pre-Christian era of history.

Voltaire hung a picture on the wall at the foot of his bed in his home at Ferney. The picture was hung on the wall so it was the first thing he saw each day. The painting was of the goddess Diana wearing a new crescent moon on her head and beneath her feet was a larger moon. The goddess Diana is reaching down to help mankind.

In September of 1792, the massacre began with some 1,300 prisoners who were murdered. Before the blood bath was over, the government and its agents murdered 40,000 people. Tragically, many of those murdered were peasants.

The revolutionary leader Maximilian Robespierre (1758 – 1794) was executed in July 1794. As in the Russian revolution, the French revolutionaries had two options, anarchy or repression. The “Terror” did not come from outside the system but from within. The Terror was produced by the system.

Lenin wrote in a book titled “The Lessons of the Paris Commune;” before the Leninists took control of the Russian revolution. He thoughtfully analyzed why the Paris Commune was defeated in 1871. His fundamental conclusion was that the French revolutionaries didn’t kill enough of their enemies. When he eventually came to power; he acted according to his personal analysis of the French Revolution.

The parallels between the French Revolution and the Russian revolution shared the same foundation. Both rested on the same philosophical base. Our universities likened the French revolution with the earlier American Revolution. Although there were crosscurrents between American and France; the similarities are actually between the English “Bloodless Revolution” and the American Revolution.

In sharp contrast to this fact are the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian revolution. In 1799 Napoleon arrived in France to establish an authoritarian regime. Lenin arrived as an authoritarian elite who usurped control and rule in Russia.

A different dynamic was involved in the political destiny of regions of Europe structurally influenced by the 16th Century restoration of Biblical Christianity of the Reformation. There is a sharp contrast between the East and South and Northern Europe. There were local influences, but the inspiration for most revolutionary changes in the south of Europe was a copy of freedoms gained in Northern Europe.

In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807- 1882) gleaned his ideas from Northern Europe but brought them into the Italian peninsula by force. In Spain the Inquisition continued in into the eighteenth century. Persecution and lack of freedom there continue up unto our own day.

The American Revolution was not created by the political, social, and theological philosophies of the Enlightenment. Historically, the American Revolution was the antithesis of the French Revolution.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Separation: Examination of the Record

If Thomas Jefferson promoted a “separation of church and state” as it is currently propagated by educators, national news media, and contemporary courts; one should be able to verify this through an examination of America’s history. I have already produced historic evidence that the current position is ignorant of American history.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution:
“No power over the freedom of religion… [is] delegated to the United States Constitution.”

The Congress of the United States passed into law the Northwest Ordinance on August 4, 1789. It has previously been passed into law under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Annotated Code, establishing the requirements for territories who desired to become states, lists the Northwest Ordinance among the most significant governmental instruments. President George Washington signed the Ordinance into law on August 7, 1789 during the same period the First Amendment was being formulated.
Article III "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

On April 30, 1802, Thomas Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to beome a state. The act which Jefferson signed declared that government in this new state “not be repugnant to the [Northwest] Ordinance.”

President Jefferson recommended that the Congress of the United States pass a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians on December 3, 1803. The annual support of a Catholic missionary priest of $100 was included in the treaty which would be supplied through the Federal treasury. In 1806 and 1807 two similar treaties were made with the Wyandotte and Cherokee tribes. A 1787 act of Congress was extended three times by Jefferson in which special lands were designated:
“For the sole use of Christian Indians and Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.”

Jefferson wrote the following letter to Abigail Adams:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them…But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

Jefferson signed bills appropriating financial support of chaplains in Congress and the armed services. He signed the Articles of War, April 10th 1806 which includes the following statement:
“Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently attend divine services.”

It is most fascinating to discover that Jefferson actually anticipated with fear the current unorthodox trends in our courts that are not pursuant to the course the framers of our Constitution established.

September 6, 1819, Jefferson wrote:
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis on September 6, 1820:
“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so…and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

In 1821, Jefferson wrote to Mr. Hammond:
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in…the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”

In 1983, Judge Brevard Hand quoted United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story who clarified the original meaning of the First Amendment.
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations) and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government”

Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Country, 544 F. Supp. 1104 (S.D. Ala. 1983)

Warren E. Burger (1907- ) Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court delivered the court’s opinion concerning chaplains opening Legislative sessions with prayer.
“The men who wrote the First Amendment religion clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that amendment…the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

“It can hardly be thought that in the same week the members of the first Congress voted to appoint and pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment... (that) they intended to forbid what they had just declared acceptable."

“(Chaplains and prayer) are deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

In 1985 case of Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668, 669-670 (1985), Chief Justice Warren Burger upheld the city of Pawtucket, R. I. who did not violate the Constitution by displaying a Nativity scene. He emphatically declared that Presidential orders and proclamations from Congress have designated Christmas as a national holiday in religious terms since 1789.
“The city of Pawtucket, R.I., annually erects a Christmas display in a park…The crèche (nativity) display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday recognized by Congress and national tradition and to depict the origins of that Holiday; these are legitimate secular purposes…The crèche…is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the congressional and executive recognition of the origins of Christmas….”

“It would be ironic if…the crèche in the display, as part of a celebration of an event acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so ‘taint’ the exhibition as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol…would be an overreaction contrary to this Nation’s history.”

“There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life….The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any.”

In 1985,William Hubbs Rehnquist (1924- ), as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated the case Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38,99:
“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history…The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years.”
“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation (between church and state)…The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”

Justice Joseph Story declared in his commentary on the First Amendment’s original meaning:
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations) and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”

Congress of the United States, March 27, 1854, report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
“What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was as established religion without all these…”

“At the adoption of the Constitution…every State…provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government…”

“Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people.

"Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect (denomination). Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the (Christian) sects to the exclusion of others."

"If (Christianity) must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, - without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices."

"In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

Congress of the United States of America, January 19, 1853. The following selections are from a report by Mr. Badger which was part of a Congressional investigation of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The (First Amendment) clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’ What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country …endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, - such law would be a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion…”

“They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealously of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people…”
“They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.”

“In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ …The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits…”

“Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government…”

“Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish Sabbath or Mohammedan Sabbath…the recognition of the Christian Sabbath (by the Constitution) is complete and perfect.”

“We are a Christian people…not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity.”

William Orville Douglas (1898-1980), Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In the 1952 case of Zorach v. Caluson, 343 US 306 307 313, Justice Douglas declared:
“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State, Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.”

“That is the common sense of the manner. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other – hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly…”
“Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.”

“Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so help me God” in our courtroom oaths – these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment.”

“We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…No constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition among sects…”

“A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’”
“We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Supreme Court of Maryland, 1799, in the case Runkel v. Winermiller ruled:
“Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equal entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, 1838 Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206,216-217 1838. The case involved a Universalist who claimed the right of “freedom of the press” as his defense for publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. The Supreme Court delivered its decision, declaring that ‘freedom of press’ was not a license to print without restraint.
“According to the argument…every act, however injurious or criminal, which can be committed by the use of language may be committed…if such language is printed. Not only therefore would the article in question become a general license for scandal, calumny and falsehood against individuals, institutions and governments, in the form of publication…but all incitation to treason, assassination, and all other crimes however atrocious, if conveyed in printed language would be depunishable.”

“(The First Amendment) embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well…as Christians of every denomination…This provision does not extend to atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore…their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.”

United States Supreme Court, June 7, 1993, case of Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District, 977 F.2d 963,972 (5th Cir.1992) The Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permitting student-initiated prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, providing a majority of the class votes to do so.
“A majority of students can do what the State acting on its own cannot do to incorporate prayer in public high school graduation ceremonies.”

“There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

United States Court of Appeals – 6th Circuit 1992, in the case Americans United for the Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F.2d 1538, 1555, stated:
“What the members of Chabad House seeks in this court is fully consistent with, and does not violate, our traditional division between church and state…They merely asked that they not be spurned because they choose to praise God. Instead of forcing them to remain on our sidelines, our Constitution offers them platform from which to proclaim their message. In a traditional public forum, as at the ballot box, all citizens are insiders as they seek to influence our civil life.”

United States Court of Appeals – 7th Circuit, May 17, 1993; The court rendered its opinion in the case of Walsh v. Boy Scouts of America. In 1989, Elliott Walsh of Hinsdale (an agnostic) sued the Boy Scouts on behalf of his son, Mark. He claimed religious discrimination against the West Suburban Council Tiger Cub Scout chapter. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Boy Scouts could keep the phrase, ‘duty to God’ in their oath. A private organization had the right to exclude anyone who refused to take the oath. In a 2-1 majority opinion, Judge John Coffey declared that the Boy Scouts did not violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Scouting was an activity and not a facility. The Boy Scouts of America was a membership organization and not a ‘place of public accommodation’.

“The leadership of many in our government is a testimonial to the success of Boy Scout activities…In recent years, single parent families, gang activity, the availability of drugs and other factors have increased the dire need for support structures like the Scouts.”

“When the government, in this instance, through the courts, seeks to regulate the membership of an organization like the Boy Scouts in a way that scuttles its founding principles, we run the risk of undermining one of the seedbeds of virtue that cultivate the sorts of citizens our nation so desperately needs.”

United States Court of Appeals – 7th Circuit 1992, in the case of Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 1992), stated:
“The Supreme Court has refused to find the Establishment Clause to be a sufficiently compelling interest to exclude private religious speech even from a limited public forum created by the government.”

United States Court of Appeals – 8th Circuit 1980, in the case Florey v. Souix Falls School District, 619 F. 2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir. 1980) The court declared that performance and study of religious songs, inclusive of Christmas carols, is constitutional, providing the purpose is:
“Advancement of the students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage, as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience.”

United States Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit 1993, in the case of Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775,785, declared:
“The committee (seeking to erect the display), like other citizens of diverse views, has a right to express its views publically in areas traditionally held open for all manner of speech.”

United States Supreme Court 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, and Justice Felix Frankfurter rendered the opinion of the court.
“Traditionally, organized education in the Western world was Church education. It could hardly be otherwise when the education of children was primarily study of the Word and the ways of God. Even in the Protestant countries, where there was a less close identification of Church and State, the basis of education was largely the Bible, and its chief purpose inculcation of piety…”

United States Supreme Court 1963, in the case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 225 (1963), pp.21, 71. Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote the courts opinion:

“It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in ‘Engle v. Vitale’. ‘The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion’”

“Secularism is unconstitutional…preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe…It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions…Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles…”

“[T]he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

It might be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

United States Supreme Court, 1969, in the case Tinker v. DesMoines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 512, 513 (1969) staed:

“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (Student’s rights apply) in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on campus during authorized hours…”

“School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.”

United States Supreme Court 1973, in the case Anderson v. Lake City Corp, 475F. 2d 29, 33, 34 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879, stated:

“But this creed does not include any element of coercion concerning these beliefs unless one considers it coercive to look upon the Ten Commandments. Although they are in plain view, no one is required to read them or recite them."

“It does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument, involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era.”

United States Supreme Court 1980, in the case Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42, 46 (1980), stated:
“Religion has been closely identified with our history and government, Abington School District, 1963, and that history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. Engle v. Vitale, 1962.”

United States Supreme Court 1981, in the case Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981), stated:
“Religious worship and discussion…are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment.”

United States Supreme Court 1982, in the case Chambers v. March, 675 F. 228, 233 (8th Cir. 1982); review allowed, 463 U.S. 783 (1982), Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the court’s opinion:

“The legislature by majority vote invites a clergyman to give a prayer, neither the inviting nor the giving nor the hearing of the prayer is making a law. On this basis alone…the sayings of prayers, per se, in the legislative halls at the opening session is not prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“The case Bogen v. Doty…involved a county board’s practice of opening each of its public meetings with a prayer offered by a local member of the clergy…This Court upheld that practice, finding that it advanced a clearly secular purpose of establishing a solemn atmosphere and serious tone for the board meetings…establishing solemnity is the primary effect of all invocations at gatherings of persons with differing views on religion.”

“The men who wrote the First Amendment religion clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that amendment…the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

“It can hardly be thought that in the same week the members of the first Congress voted to appoint and pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment…(that) they intended to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.”

“(Chaplains and prayer) are deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

President George Washington addressed the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches of Virginia on May 10, 1789:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it;

“…I beg you will be persuaded that one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against…every species of religious persecution.”

Chronology of 1st Amendment Debate

On September 25, 1789, The Congress of the United States voted on the final version of the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

On June 8, 1789, the initial draft of the First Amendment was proposed by James Madison.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

The House Select Committee, after a great deal of discussion revised the wording of the proposed amendment.
“No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, objected to the Select Committee’s version.
“It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.”

James Madison proposed the insertion of the word “national” before the word “religion” but was rejected. Madison’s interpretation of the wording of the amendment was as follows:
“That Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal worship of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any way manner contrary to their conscience.”

Congressman Huntington suggested:
"The amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.”

Roger Sherman opposed the ratification of an amendment. He believed the federal government was not to any say in what was under the jurisdiction of the states.

Madison realized that Congressman Benjamin Huntington:
“…apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

Madison agreed with Congressmen Huntington and Sylvester and responded:
“…believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two (Congregational and Anglican) combine and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

On August 15, 1789, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed the following wording of the proposed amendment:
“Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”

The House agreed and accepted the first five words of his version.

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, on August 20, 1789, introduced the language:
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”
The House accepted the proposal and delivered it to the Senate for discussion and debate. The Senate proposed several versions in succession on September 3, 1789.
"Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

“Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination or religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

“Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience.”

On September 3, 1789, the Senate finally accepted this version at the close of the day:
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Senate agreed on the subsequent version on September 9, 1789.
“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

The proposal was sent to a joint committee of the Senate and House to reconcile differences.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

On December 15, 1791, The Bill of Rights was ratified by the states. This was a declaration of what the federal government was forbidden to do; leaving the individual states free within each of their state constitutions.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Separation of Church and State

Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991) declared:
“Article 124: In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R is separated from the State, and the school from the church.”

Constitution of the United States of America (June 21, 1788 - ) By June 21, 1788, nine of the states had ratified the Constitution, establishing the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Supreme Court of New York 1958, declared in the case Baer v. Kolmorgen, 181 N.Y.S. 2d. 230, 237 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1958):

“Much has been written in recent years concerning Thomas Jefferson’s reference in 1802 to ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ …Jefferson’s figure of speech has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.”

Roger Williams (1603-1683) was the “Father of Rhode Island” and founder of Providence and Rhode Island Plantations. He founded the town of Providence in 1636 on land given to him by the Narragansett Indians. Providence, Rhode Island was the first place in world history where freedom to worship was separated from the control of the state. Williams organized the First Baptist Church in the New World. A founding principal of Providence was that the state could not interfere or restrict free and open worship of God according to the Bible. The Charter of Rhode Island was granted to Roger Williams in July of 1663 by King Charles II.
“That they, pursueing, with peaceable and loyall mindes, sober, serious and religious intentions…in the holie Christian faith…a most flourishing civil state may stand and best bee maintained…grounded upon gospel principles.”

Roger Williams declared in a message:
“When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall itself…And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be wall in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”

On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury Connecticut. Jefferson wrote to calm their fears that Congress was not in the process of choosing a single Christian denomination to become the “state” denomination as in the case of Anglican England and Virginia. The Baptists has suffered severe persecution for their faith. Jefferson borrowed a phrase from the Baptist minister Roger Williams. As I cited previously, Williams declared, “the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall…”

Thomas Jefferson declared:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies soley between a man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

Consequently, Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists in this personal letter that the Federal Government was forbidden to interfere with, or in any way control, the decisions and religious affairs of the American churches.

Thomas Jefferson was not a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 nor did he sign the Constitution of the delegates to the convention. Jefferson wasn’t present when religious freedom and the First Amendment was debated in the first session of Congress in 1789. Jefferson was the Minister to France when these events occurred. Jefferson heard neither the debates nor the comments made by the Founders regarding the First Amendment. Thus, Jefferson relied on 2nd hand information concerning what transpired during the first session of Congress. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist was written 13 years after the First Amendment. Consequently, Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists is ineligible to be considered as a “first-hand" account of what transpired and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

In Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address he declared,

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson correctly places the “wall of separation” surrounding the church; protecting it from infringements by the federal government.

As early as 1879, the Supreme Court declared Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase as “almost an authoritarian declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

It is interesting that the Supreme Court used Jefferson’s “wall of separation” to justify removing prayer and Bible reading from the public schools.

As President of the United States Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) chaired the school board of the District of Columbia. He authored the first plan of education adopted by the city of Washington D. C. His plan used the Holy Bible and Isaac Watts’ "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs", 1707 as the principal books to teaching reading to the students.

Jefferson was founder of the University of Virginia and recommended that students be permitted to meet together on the campus to pray and worship together. They were encouraged to meet and pray with their professors on campus.

Edward S. Corwin clearly indicates in “American Constitutional History” the purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution was “to exclude from the national government all power to act on the subject…of religion.”
James Madison declared, “There is not a shadow of right in the general [federal] government to intermeddle with religion…the subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it.”

Constitutional attorney, John W Whitehead declares,
“The First Amendment, therefore, provides freedom for the Christian religion, not freedom from religion.”

In a letter to Samuel Miller on January 23, 1808, Jefferson declared:

“I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. [10th Amendment].
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states as far as it can be in any authority.”

On June 12, 1823 Jefferson wrote a letter to Justice William Johnson regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may ne squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Philosophic Basis of the 1st Amendment

Franky Schaeffer states:
“It has been convenient and expedient for the secular humanist, the materialist, the so-called liberal, the feminist, the genetic engineer, the bureaucrat, the Supreme Court justice, to use this arbitrary division between church and state as a ready excuse. It is used, as an easily identifiable rallying point, to subdue the opinions of that vast body of citizens who represent those with religious convictions.”

The framers of our Constitution provided the First Amendment specifically to limit the federal government in several areas concerning the basic rights of American citizens: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition of grievances. The freedom of religion was paramount to the founders of our Republic under God. Religious freedom is the base for exercise of the other freedoms. Martin Luther’s assertion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ came to be known as the liberty of conscience.

In "The Travail of Religious Freedom", Roland Bainton proclaims:
“…all freedoms hand together…Civil liberties scarcely thrive when religious liberties are disregarded, and the reverse is equally true. Beneath them all is a philosophy of liberty, which assumes a measure of variety in human behavior, honors integrity, respects the dignity of man, and seeks to exemplify the compassion of God.”

Eminent jurist James Kent declared in his classic work "Commentaries on American Law",
“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship may be considered as one of the absolute rights of individuals, recognized in our…law.”

This was the heritage of the Reformation and was developed from William Blackstone by James Kent. Kent published his Commentaries adapting the title and structure parallel to Blackstone. They shared the same faith in the divine order of the law.

Although the Constitution makes no direct reference to God; it is technical document, a contract, an agreement, a covenant between the federal government and the people collectively in the states.

They did not want the federal government to have any authority over the church and religion. It incorporates the theistic principles of colonial constitutions and the Declaration of Independence.

Notice the term in the preamble to the Constitution, “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Constitution was ordained to “secure the blessings of liberty” that already existed in 1789. The liberties already existed in the state constitutions which were Christian.
“We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful gratitude hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the Universe, according us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an Original, explicit, and Solemn Compact with each other…” Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution was to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a national church. James Madison declared that the 1st Amendment was ratified because the “people feared one sect might obtain preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel the others to conform.”

The philosophic base of the First Amendment is denominational-pluralism. The First Amendment protected a healthy coexistence of all Christian sects. This is not to be confused with the contemporary pluralism of our era which commands complete acceptance of all views including non-theistic world view of secular humanism. At the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, several of the states were supporting a church or religion. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black acknowledged this fact in the 1962 Supreme Court decision banning prayer from public schools.

“Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five.”

This continued into the early part of the nineteenth century. Massachusetts paid salaries to Congregational ministers until 1833. Although American states had Christianity as their foundation; it did not mean they were theocracies. (Theocracies are governments of state officials who are regarded as divinely guided.)

It meant that laws and civil government were based upon biblical principles. The state government did not tell how one should worship.

In 1785 session of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, James Madison explained in "Religious Freedom, A Memorial and Remonstrance" why he was opposed to the establishment of religion by law.
“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage…Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

“Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominions of false religions, and how small is the former! Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of Truth, from coming into the region of it…”

Wilst we assert ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence to God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.”

Earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may, on the one hand, turn their councils from every act which would affront His holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them; and, on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of blessing.”

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story declared in his work A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840:
“We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment (in the First Amendment) to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution)…
Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.
Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation...The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead declared,
“The Constitution separated the institution of the church from the institution of the state but not the Christian religion from the federal state – far less Christian individuals from any meaningful activity within the state and society at large.”

Therefore, the idea of a Christian being excluded from practicing his Christian principles except at home and in the church was unthinkable.

In the First Amendment, the word “Congress” means the Federal Government. The word “Respecting” is literally defined as “having anything to do with.” Historically the term “establishment” means “government support of a single church or government preference of one creed or denomination over another.”

In contemporary language as Attorney Whitehead declares the First Amendment would read:
“The federal government shall make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

The word “religion” as used in the First Amendment was defined by the founders in terms of Judeo-Christian theism. James Madison termed “religion” as:
“Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…”

Religion was to be protected by the First Amendment and had its reference point in God. The entire Bill of Rights were restraints and restrictions upon the Federal Government and not the state governments.

Shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment; the courts determined that the states should be restricted by the Bill of Rights. This is one of the greatest distortions of Constitutional doctrine.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of a declaration which some people assert was made by George Washington. We must ask the question “Is the statement accurate?” Did George Washington repudiate the Christian religion?

The 1797 treaty was one of several treaties with Tripoli. It was negotiated during a conflict Americans had with Barbary pirates known as the “Barbary Powers Conflict.” The conflagration began soon after the end of the American War for Independence and continued through the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Muslim Barbary Powers of Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli were waging war against a presumed adversary whom they claimed to be the “Christian” nations. The nations to whom they referred are England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States.

Tripoli actually declared war on the United States in 1801. This was the first official war which was waged against the fledgling independent republic.

The four Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) regularly attacked defenseless American merchant ships. Their cargoes were taken and the “Christian” seamen were captured and enslaved. Glen Tucker in his work, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy states that The Barbary Powers assertion that they were retaliating for offences which they claim had occurred to them in the preceding centuries. (The Crusades and expulsion from Granada during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella)

President George Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary Powers. Washington was attempting to secure the release of captured seamen and make assurances that shipping would be unmolested in the Mediterranean Sea. In 1793 Colonel David Humphreys was selected to be the only commissioner of Algerian affairs. Humphreys, chosen by Washington, negotiated treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. Joseph Donaldson Jr., was appointed as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. Donaldson and / or Joel Barlow received delegated powers from Humphreys in February of 1796 to form treaties. In 1795, United States Consul to Gibraltar, James Simpson was dispatched to Morocco to renew the treaty. Richard O’Brien received a commission on October 8, 1796 from Barlow to negotiate a peace treaty with Tripoli.

Although Washington sought to construct naval warship to defend American shipping; it wasn’t implemented until the presidency of John Adams when the Department of the Navy was created in 1798.

Numerous treaties of “Peace and Amity” were negotiated with the Barbary Powers; but terms of the treaties were often unfavorable to American interests. American envoys attempted to ensure the protection of American commercial shipping from pirating in the Mediterranean Sea by the Muslim nations.

A treaty with Morocco was ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787.

A treaty with Algiers was concluded on September 5, 1795 and ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796.

The "Treaty of Peace and Amity" was concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815 and proclaimed on December 26, 1815.

A treaty with Tripoli was concluded November 4, 1796 and ratified June 10, 1797.

A "Treaty of Peace and Amity" was concluded June 4, 1805. The United States Senate advised ratification on April 12, 1806.

A treaty with Tunis was concluded August 1797 and the Senate advised ratification. Amendments to the treaty were added on March 6, 1798. Alterations were concluded on March 26, 1799. The Senate again advised ratification on December 24, 1799.

Gardner W. Allen states in his book, "Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs” that Americans were required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in “tribute” to the four countries securing safety. Beside the official extortion demanded by the Muslim nation other “considerations” were expected. A warship was to be presented to “Tripoli” as a “gift” and Algiers was to receive a frigate as a “gift”. $525,000 ransom was demanded as ransom to free American seamen in Algiers.

In an attempt to prevent the escalation of the conflict into a “Holy War” each country officially recognized the religion of the participant countries. The recognition of religions of the participant nations in the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, one of several treaties, was made to prevent an escalation of hostilities into a “Holy War.”

See Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24 of the treaty with Morocco.
See the Treaty of 1795 with Algiers, Article 17 and the Treaty of 1815, Article 17. See the Treaty of 1796 with Tripoli, Article 11 and the Treaty of 1805, Article 14.

Article XI of the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli stated:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The article can be read in two different ways. First, it can be read as the critics conclude the article after the clause “Christian religion.”

Secondly, it should be read in its entirety and therefore concluded as the punctuation indicates.

The abrupt shortened manner (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”) is not an untrue statement for it is referring to the federal government.

Although the Founders openly described America as a Christian nation; they included a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment of religion. Religion was an issue left solely to the powers of the individual states or in other words “the people.”

One may read the article as a declaration that the federal government of the United States isn’t founded upon Christianity. This is not repudiation that America was considered as a Christian nation.

If one reads the entire clause of the treaty; it fails to weaken the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Article IX of the treaty distinguishes the United States of America from European Christian nations which held animosity toward Muslims. The article assured the Muslim nations that America was not as the European nations of antiquity. It assured Muslims that the United States would not undertake a war of religion against them.

This was an attitude prevalent among American leaders such as John Jay. On May 8, 1823, Jay described the Christianity practiced in America as “wise and virtuous” in an address delivered to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society. John Adams, in a speech before both houses of Congress on November 23, 1797, described Christianity practiced in America as “rational.” John Quincy Adams in "An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence" declared that Christianity was “civilized”.

A lucid distinction was made between Christianity as practiced in America and religion practiced throughout Europe in previous centuries.

Noah Webster in the History of the United States explained:

"The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it."

On February 10, 1844, Daniel Webster, delivered his speech “In Defense of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young” before the United States Supreme Court in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will. Webster declared that in his opinion American Christianity was:

"Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!"

Persons who attribute the contested article found in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli to President George Washington make two tragic errors. No statement in the Treaty can be attributed to Washington for he never saw the treaty. The treaty arrived in America months after he left office. Furthermore, no statement can be ascribed to him for it wasn’t his work.

It is intellectually dishonest to extract a single clause from the treaty removing it from the rest of the statement which gives it context. The treaty was ratified in 1797 during the administration of John Adams. To suggest that President Adams would endorse and assent to a provision which repudiates Christianity is absurd nonsense.

On July 3rd 1786, John Adams discussed with Thomas Jefferson the conflict with the Barbary pirates.

In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

"The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.”

On June 28, 1813, Adams declared to Jefferson:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."

Consequently, Adams rejected the foolish supposition that America wasn’t a Christian nation! He clearly asserts and confirms his belief that America is a Christian nation.

General William Eaton was appointed as “Consul to Tunis” by President John Adams. William Eaton advanced to an appointment of “U.S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States” from President Thomas Jefferson. President Jefferson authorized Eaton to lead a military campaign against Tripoli. The writings of General Eaton provide irrefutable evidence through his testimony of how the conflict was perceived at that juncture in history. Eaton’s official correspondence during his term of service substantiates and verifies the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

The historical account that follows is found in Charles Prentiss’ work "The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli."

On June 15, 1799, correspondence between General Eaton and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering indicates why he believed Muslims would be committed foes.

“Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.”

On June 27, 1800, General Eaton complained to Mr. Smith. Although President Jefferson approved his military plan of action; he was sent an obsolete warship “Hero.” He recounts the impression the Muslims of Tunis had of the obsolete warship armed with a few cannon.
"[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians."

Furthermore, On July 4, 1800, Eaton describes in a letter to Pickering how pleased a Barbary pirate had been after receiving the “tribute” (extorted compensation) which was promised in a treaty with America.

"To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."

On September 2, 1800, General Eaton informed John Marshall, the new Secretary of State:

“It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that ‘The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.’”

Military action finally commenced between the Americans under the command of General Eaton against Tripoli. On April 8, 1805, General Eaton made the following notation in his personal journal:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

"May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it?"

After the military campaign against Tripoli ended successfully; the official account was published. The title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict.

“The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli.”

One can also examine the “Report of the Committee to Whom was Recommended on the Twenty-Sixth Ultimo A Resolution Respecting William Eaton", January 8, 1806.

Numerous documents concerning the Barbary Powers Conflict affirm that it was always seen as a conflict between Christian America and the Muslim nations of north Africa. The notion that Washington or any founding President declared that America was not a Christian nation or a Christian people is revisionist nonsense.