Re-Definition
Source: Dictionary Re-Definition. (external link)
See also list of old law dictionaries (this website)
Changing the meanings with purpose and intent to mislead and deceive.
There appears in the public record, a pair of volumes of dictionaries, one printed in 1863 and the other 1864. These appear to evidence a professional lexicographer may have colluded to purposely falsify the definition of words. It appears the two volumes are from Webster’s. These changes appear to have been intended to alter the comprehension of the general population in America, and elsewhere, in reference to the meaning of the words at the time of the Constitutional Conventions. It appears these changes were done with intent and purpose to deceive men and women so they would accept explanations that are false and misleading. It appears by altering the definitions of the words, the truth, lawful, and proper application of the Constitution could be misconstrued. Therefore when courts say the Constitution must be read with the meanings of the words when it was written, have they gone to the original meanings, or the altered meanings?
Words are very important in describing government. For instance, the definitions of Federal, Confederation, State, E Pluribus Unum, Congress, Alliance, Democracy and Union appear to have been changed for purposes of influencing the promotion of a “national” government distinct from the “general” government established by the Constitution for the United States.
See the following:
Federal was changed from denoting a confederacy, to acquire a national meaning –
Confederation remaining the same except for the second part: “The United States are sometimes called the Confederation.”
State was changed from an Independent Political body to a national dependent (and later editions further reduced the States down to nothing but “territorial units”).
E Pluribus Unum (our motto) was changed from “One composed of many… many States confederated” to “One government formed of many States.”
Congress was changed from “The assembly of the Delegates of the Several States” to “The assembly of senators and representatives of the people of a nation.”
Alliance remained otherwise the same, but, struck out had been that part stating, “A confederacy.”
Democracy was changed to mean the same as “a Republic,” and
Union had acquired a new meaning, no longer “States United” but a consolidated, single body.
Congress [from Webster’s 1844 edition (Retained until 1864)]: The assembly of delegates of the several British colonies in America, which united to resist the claims of Great Britain in 1774, and which, in 1776, declared the colonies independent.
3. The Assembly of the delegates of the several United States, after the declaration of independence, and until the adoption of the present constitution, and the organization of the government in 1789. During these periods, the congress consisted of one house only.
4. The assembly of senators and representatives of the United States of America, according to the present constitution or political compact, by which they are united in a “federal” republic; [“federal” meaning a confederacy; see below] the legislature of the United States consisting of two houses, a senate and a house of representatives. Members of the senate are elected for six years, but the members of the house of representatives are chosen for two years only. Hence, the united body of senators and representatives for the two years, during which they hold their seats, is called one congress. Thus we say the second session of the sixteenth congress [and have a clear understanding that the parties making up that Congress were delegates from their respective States to a “political compact” entered into by “the several United States” assembled in a “federal republic” –1844 all this in the definition by Noah Webster].
***Here we move to the 1864 edition. Follow this closely:
Congress – [AFTER 1863]: 5. The assembly of senators and representatives of the people of a nation especially of a republic, for the purpose of enacting laws, and considering matters of a national interest, and constituting the chief legislative body of the nation [no longer “the several States,” but one nation and one citizenry instead of the independent Citizens of the several States].
E Pluribus Unum [Before 1864]: One composed of many; the motto of the United States, consisting of many States “confederated.”
E Pluribus Unum [After 1863]: One out of many; one composed of many; – the motto of the United states, as being one government formed of many independent States.
Federal [Before 1864]:
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
Federal [After 1863]:
1. Pertaining to a league, contract, or treaty; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, especially between nations; constituted by a compact between parties, usually governments or their representatives.
2. Specifically composed of states or districts which retain only a subordinate and limited sovereignty, as the Union of the United States, or the sonderbund of Switzerland; constituting or pertaining to such a government, as the Federal Constitution; a Federal officer; friendly or devoted to such a government.
There appears in the public record additional dictionaries, other than Merriam Webster Company, that participated in the manufacture of new definitions. It appears that in 1864, absolutely no other dictionary in the world carried the same definitions as this edition above cited, while pointing out that even the Merriam Webster Company had for 36 years stuck with the original and true definitions, and only after the appearance of that corrupt edition did other dictionary companies follow the trend.
The book titled A Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1895). Turning to the word “Federal,” it appears this new company having just begun in 1890 had put in their 1895 edition the following:
Federal: Of or pertaining to, or founded upon and organized by, a compact or act of union between separate sovereign states;
as (1) by a league for common interest and defense as regards external relations, the internal sovereignty
of each member remaining unimpaired, as the Hanseatic League or the Germanic Confederation;
or (2) by a permanent act of a union founded on the consent of the people duly expressed, constituting a
government supreme within the sphere of the powers granted to it by that act of union, as the
United States of America. The constitution of the United States of America is of a very different
nature from that of the Germanic Confederation. It is not merely a league of sovereign States for
their common defense against external and internal violence, but a supreme federal government
or compositive State acting not only upon the sovereign members of the Union, but directly upon
all its citizens in their individual and corporate capacities.
Wheaton Elements International Law section 52 p. 78… From 1776 to 1789 the United States were a confederation; after 1789 it was a federal nation [note: in 1776 and 1789 the words confederal and federal were synonyms].
1930 New Gresham English Dictionary. FEDERAL: Fed’er-al, a. [Fr. federal, fr. L. foedus, foederis, a league or treaty, seen also in confederate; akin to fidus, faithful, fides, faith. FAITH] Pertaining to a League, covenant, or contract, particularly between states or nations; united in a federation; confederated; founded on alliance between several states which unite for national or general purposes, each state retaining control of its home affairs, civil and criminal law, &c. (a federal republic) – n. One who upholds federal government.
Note that this dictionary was not influenced by the Merriam Webster company but retained the true etymology as historically laid out by all the earlier lexicographers. There are others also that unfailingly stuck with the truth in America.
1947, the Winston Dictionary College Edition states: Fed-er-al: pertaining to, or of the nature of, a compact or union of sovereign states, which agree to delegate certain specific governmental powers to the new state or government thus formed; 2, of or pertaining to an agreement or alliance between sovereign states which, for certain purposes, agree to act together;
Federal,
1. designating, or pertaining to, the government of the United States as distinguished from that of any State;
2. during the American Civil War, favoring the North: Federal Reserve Bank, any one of twelve district banks established in the United States by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to cooperate with the Federal Reserve Board in Washington in regulating and aiding the member banks of each respective district: Federal, n. during the American Civil War, a supporter of the North.
Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary,
Federal [1965]:
1. archaic: of or relating to a compact or treaty;
2 a: formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government;
b: of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units; c: of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinguished from the government of the constituent units.
Notice that the original meaning is given as “archaic,” a modern admission that the definition is still true, but has been archived. The difference between such an archived word and other terms relegated to obscurity (whatever they described having become disused, thus naturally fading from the language) is that “federal,” plus additional entries already mentioned, “have been arrested right out of common usage and detained without counsel into the ‘archaic’ vault by iconoclastic sophists, to be replaced at their whims with captious and fallacious utterances.” Since the trend is now all “Porterized,” it’s unlikely that an American will find any modern dictionary sticking with the true meanings of these words. For instance:
New World Edition’s
Federal [1978]:
1. of or formed by a compact; specifically designating or of a union of states, groups, etc. in which each member agrees to subordinate certain specified common affairs.
2. designating, of, or having to do with a central authority or government in such a union; specifically designating of, or having to do with the central government of the U.S. [Central authority???]
Federalize [pre 1864 Webster]:
To unite in compact, as different states; to confederate for political purposes. Compare that with the 1965 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:
Federalize [post 1863]
1: to unite in or under a federal system;
2: to bring under the jurisdiction of a federal government.
And then see the New World Edition’s
Federalize [1978]:
1. To unite (states, etc.) in a federal union.
2. To put under the authority of a federal government.
Federalized [pre 1864]: United in Compact.
Federalizing [pre 1864]: Confederating.
Federate [pre 1864] Leagued; united by compact, as sovereignties, states or nations; joined in
confederacy; as, federate nations or powers.
Federate [post 1863 (1978 New world Edition)]: to league together… United by common agreement under a central government or authority… to unite in a federation.
Federation [pre 1864]: The act of uniting in a league. 2. A league; a confederacy.
Federative [pre 1864]: Uniting: joining in a league; forming a confederacy.
State [pre 1864]: 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. More usually the word signifies a political body governed by representatives; a commonwealth; as, the states of Greece; the States of America.
State [Post 1863]: 9. In the United States, one of the commonwealths or bodies politic, the people of which make up the body of the nation, and which under the national constitution, stand in certain specified relations with the national government, and are invested, as commonwealths, with full power in their several spheres, over all matters not expressly inhibited. [Notice the emphases on “national government” and the term, “invested as,” not that each of them is a commonwealth; which meaning, by the way, of commonwealth, was also changed in the 1864 edition.]
State [1978 New World Edition]: …any of the territorial and political units that together constitute a federal government, as in the U.S.
State [Webster’s 10th Colligate Dictionary 2001]: 7: One of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government [the fifty~s].
State-hood [1868]: The condition of being a state; esp: the status of being one of the states of the U.S. [note: the origin of this term was at that time when new State Constitutions were written by the Generals who held military forces over the defeated Constitutional States having tried to hang onto the original “Federal” Government. I should also add that those 1864 definitions would determine the political conditions in such new “States” no longer in possession of their formerly sovereign governments, each having become a “territorial unit,” the newly-applied sophist definition of a State].
State right-er [1947]: one who advocates strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of states’ rights.
It appears the term, “State(s),” as in the organic Constitution, is something quite different from its altered application in the “14th Amendment” of 1868. And the word Congress – before all that “reconstruction” would also have gained another meaning, in the amendment, from what it had in the Constitution’s main body, i.e., if we are to believe that revised dictionary of 1864.
A historical review might help us understand the lexicographer behind those many falsified definitions, that we might determine whether or not he made such changes properly and legitimately. Noah Porter worked with Merriam Webster Company from the start, when they bought out the rights to continue Noah Webster’s works after the latter had died in 1843. Looking at all dictionaries from 1847 (the first Merriam Webster edition), and taking into account the fact that Noah Porter was on the staff maintaining former definitions as laid out by Noah Webster even through the 1863 version with no changes whatsoever until 1864, we see that the argument over States rights had peaked.
Since Noah Webster in all of his efforts to define these key words having to do with understanding our government maintained that we had a confederation, no editing was called for. Everyone except those lusting for inordinate power considered the States sovereign – separate entities administered by their respective governments, and duly authorized to maintain themselves thus. The “delegated” (also a word changed in the 1864 edition) “Congress” was a body of representatives beholden to these States, and therefore not a nation.
We should also take note that when such words were falsified, Noah Porter and the Merriam Webster Company stood alone in the whole English-speaking world as to these new meanings. All lexicographers including Samuel Johnson, Boags, Walker and even Joseph Worcester maintained that “Federal” meant a league or compact (Compact was also changed), therefore a confederacy. Noah Webster and the entire realm of lexicography, along with Porter, had been agreed on this. But in 1864 Noah Porter and the Merriam Webster company sent the people of the United States into an obscurity of meanings and concepts.
Why did the 1864 “American edition” make these changes while the same staff left alone the previous definitions and did not alter them in their “London edition”?
The “American edition” alone had been reconstructed; London and all of the other English- speaking countries received their 1864 editions with the proper definitions intact, though both the American and the London compilations came from the same staff. Not until 1877 was England presented with the false definitions.
It appears that no publication of the debates, at the constitutional convention was released to the public until 1818. The government officers operated from 1789 until 1818 with their own interpretation of what they were and while feeling that the confederation should function as they saw fit. It turns out that the delegates had already begun practicing as if those States having given them limited authority retained no rights, and that the government was a strict national regime.
It appears in the public record that John Taylor wrote the book called New views of the Constitution. It appears that Mr. Taylor exposed the national form already put into practice. Once John Taylor read the debates, he wrote his book exposing the facts: that the confederated States were behaving as if a national government had been ratified. His first chapter begins with the meaning of certain words, and his statement “I shall attempt to ascertain the nature of our form of government, and the existence of a project to alter it. Principles and words are the disciplinarians of construction, but the latter require definitions to come at truth” (New Views of the Constitution, section I, 1823). Here we find his argument against the national government by going through words such as Union, Federal, Compact, United, Congress, State, etc. So the stage was set for the continued debates to grow further apart even to a state of war. ‘It will be remembered that John Taylor had every lexicographer in the English-speaking world to support his claims, including Noah Webster.
It appears that, because of this book written by John Taylor, nationalism lost its primary thrust as many statesmen, including John C. Calhoun, for instance, came to the light of its truth. This began the States’ Rights arguments about the power to nullify Federal (keeping in mind Federal meant Confederate at the time) Laws.”
John Taylor points out that a “national” government required a “standing army” which was refused and specified in the Bill of Rights which required the Militia of the States as primary enforcement and the General government was required to maintain their training with no standing army longer than two years.
Section 8 – Powers of Congress – The Congress shall have the power:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a
longer term than two years: [No Standing Army- only as needed for defense if needed]
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such
part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the
states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
Article II “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
The men and women at that time were well aware of the history of corruption in government and officials to expand and misconstrue the powers within their care as evidenced:
Preamble to The Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
And in
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) it was argued that a “national” government was established by “all the people in an aggregate” capacity as “one nation”, however, Georgia did not concede which required the 11th Amendment. The delegates of the States, that attended the Constitutional Convention, did not have delegated authority from the people of each State to present a new form of government that would rule over them. The citizens of each State maintained local control of their delegated powers through their “juries” as the final say on any legislation. This did not set well with the faction that wanted to total control over the population through a “national” government.
Daniel Webster (not the dictionary’s dedicated keeper, Noah), while throughout the early 1830s ignoring the compact’s true basis, argued in the halls of Congress, in his famous speech of February 16, 1833, for the national side despite understanding the meanings of its words. His famous speech directly contradicts the words of Madison, whom he quotes as his source and authority. It should also be pointed out that Daniel Webster was an associate to Noah Webster if not an outright friend, for letters found by historians show their having written to one another. This being the case, how can one excuse Daniel Webster’s reutilizing the federal compact and imagining a national charter? The following resolutions were entered into the Congressional Record approximately 10 years after Taylor’s book, which had established the truth in the Constitutional Records.
On the 21st of January, 1833, Mr. Wilkins, chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, introduced a bill for the collection of duties. On the 22nd day of January, 1833, Mr. Calhoun submitted the following resolutions:
“Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these United States are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification; and that the union of which the said compact is the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the same.”
“Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well as of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.”
“Resolved, That the assertions, that the people of these United States, taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on the principle of the social compact, and , as such, are now formed into one nation or people, or that they have ever been so united in any one stage of their political existence; that the people of the several States composing the Union have not, as members thereof, retained their sovereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the general government; that they have parted with the right of punishing treason through their respective State governments; and that they have not the right of judging in the last resort as to the extent of the powers reserved, and consequences of those delegated, — are not only without foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise on the part of the general government, or any of its departments, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitutional, — must tend, directly and inevitably, to subvert the sovereignty of the States, to destroy the federal character of the Union, and to rear on its ruins a consolidated government, without constitutional check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in the loss of liberty itself.” [Check the record for the complete set of resolutions.]
NOTE: A previous warning – “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” -Thomas Jefferson
Taylor also pointed out that the Constitution was framed with the word “national” in it, but one of the first things done on June 25th, 1787 was to strike out the words “national” and replace them with “United States of America” as found in the Articles of Confederation. The States already had an acceptable government compact and the delegates were neither authorized nor empowered to alter or change it. Thus the need for the resolutions as stated above.
It appears the nationalists were stopped in their attempt to alter the intention for the Conventions, and decided they could re-construe the meanings at a later time, as pointed out by the Judge quoting Madison:
*35 “The States at the present are only great corporations, having the power of making by-laws, and these are effectual only, if they are not contradictory to the General Confederation. The States OUGHT to be placed under the control of the General Government – at least as much as they formerly were, under the King and British Parliament”. And it must be admitted that after the adoption of the Constitution, no better ways remained to give the General Government this control, than to make a new instrument of the Constitution, by construction. (Yate’s Min. 1Ell. Deb. 461.)
Federalist #39 James Madison:
“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
McCulloch v. Maryland – 17 U.S. 316 (1819) The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might
“be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.” This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject — by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States — and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.
“With respect to our state and federal governments, I do not think their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the state governments are reserved all legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government – neither having control over the other, but within its own department.” from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Major John Cartwright, of June 5th, 1824 (vol. 4, p. 396)
“Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated,… yet the spirit is not done away. The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:95
It is not enough that honest men are appointed judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed that “it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,” and the absence of responsibility, and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state from which they have nothing to hope or fear. We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate. AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson 1743 — 1790
“The power of Parliament is absolute and transcendent; it is omnipotent in the scale of political existence. Besides, in England there is no written constitution, no fundamental law, nothing visible, nothing real, nothing certain, by which a statute can be tested. In America the case is widely different: Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision. What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void”. VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)2 U.S. 304 (Dall.)
It appears certain delegates wanted to create a “national” government to rule over the people as an amalgamated aggregated population rather than as separate Nations originally confederated. It appears they wanted to create a superior ruling political body centralized in the district of Columbia under Roman Civil Law to control all commerce wherein they could “tax” all commercial exchange. The Corporations in international business wanted to create monopolies as had previously existed in the colonies. Each State had control of the corporations as public services, and the corporations were subject to personal liability. Under Common Law, the rules required good faith and fair dealings with a money system that was backed in parity of substance exchangeable between men for private business.
So, it appears the people, that acted in their sovereign capacity as a Nation/State, were presented, under pretense, a “compact” for a General government with specific issues that were thought would be worth unity for mutual benefits and specific and enumerated causes, and then afterwards, those who wanted a “national” government began acting as if that is what was accepted, and those delegates who were at the Constitutional Conventions, began speaking up such as Kentucky and Virginia with resolutions that were written in order to avoid the claim of acquiescence. Because the minutes of the conventions were not printed for 20 years, and then when available, Taylor’s book “New Views of the Constitution, set the record straight.
This enlightened revelation, by Taylor, at the time leveled any national theory before it could utter a syllable of untruths. The reply by those who didn’t like having their wings clipped was to begin a wrecking campaign against all lawful States’ Rights doctrines, and since that couldn’t be accomplished via truth it had to be done with force. The principles laid out by our confederated States would now come under attack from mercenary rather than the true meanings well understood by our forefathers. Slavery as the front issue would cause so much confusion that the actual form of government might be overlooked.
Realizing in 1864 that the aggressors would win insofar as physical force was concerned, now the power of information that had checked the eventual instigators of that war in 1823 would surely rise again. So chaining this truth away forever would involve altering public concepts regarding the principles and forms of our republic; thus the power-hungry took to deceit.
First they begin by smuggling false definitions to the people under the wraps of a famous dictionary, Merriam Webster’s having got control of the name when Noah Webster died. Next task, find a way to do away with the equally-noted Dictionary by Joseph Worcester.
Remember, prior to the Civil War, sometimes known as the “Great Dictionary Wars”, all the literati of the times, gladiated the works of Noah Webster and Joseph Worcester as superior lexicographers. The most educated and elite men split hairs over which was the best overall, little difference supporting any preference. It seems as the war went on that it was more and more clear that neither lexicographer had much on the other. So, exactly what happened, that one of these dictionarians disappeared into obscurity where the other kept his household popularity?
Although not certain, it’s possible both dictionary companies were approached about their willingness to make falsified definitions to counter Taylor’s ad populi arguments revealing what had been agreed upon, and certain facts suggest why one of those otherwise equal lexicographers was blackballed into oblivion.
First, Worcester’s 1864 edition and all issues thereafter never falsified these words, and even in supplements pointed out that changes were due to the so-called Civil War. As late as 1904 (which is the last I have found of Worcester’s work) it still retained the true definitions.
Fact two: The new regime displayed signs in government printing offices instructing proofreaders, editors and compositors to “FOLLOW WEBSTER.” And then the Merriam Webster Company bragged of its pedigree by claiming that Webster was the choice of the Courts. In some of their old dictionaries a page can be found quoting Supreme Court Justices praising the work of Webster (Merriam, that is, for Noah Webster’s works were barely to be found after the verbal ambuscades had distilled them out and concocted a new language brew. This potion has been the American drink ever since).
Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes announced publicly that he preferred Webster over Worcester, but the final blow came when Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard, wrote in 1900 that he had made use of Worcester’s for the past ten years but now would happily replace Worcester with Webster. It should also be noted that Eliot called the Merriam Webster Dictionary “The Revision.”
I shall now quote from the pen of Robert Keith Leavitt in his book titled Noah’s Ark, New England Yankees and the Endless Quest, published by the G. G. Merriam Company, 1947, page 67: “The West Point cadets were furnished with a copy of Webster for each room – and required to keep it in good condition. Schools in State after State and city after city (prodded by a well organized ‘adoption campaign’ from Springfield) standardized on Webster. Legislatures made Webster their authority by resolution, and courts followed this lead, right up to the Supreme Court of the United States. In every executive department of the Federal Government Webster was the authority.” It should further be noted that imperialistic countries flocked for rights to make Webster (Merriam, that is) the chief dictionary for educating their subjects. The King of Siam, the Sayid of Aleppo, and China, were among those so beseeching; this in light of the fact that many other English dictionaries were still being published and remained available – such as Johnson’s, Walker’s, Bailey’s, Boag’s; and, foremost, Joseph Worcester; not to mention a dozen other fully-qualified lexicographers.
So, it appears the original meanings of the words before the 1864 edition of Webster’s should be used to accomplish from the following instruction. “We are bound to interpret the constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted, not as reaching out for new guaranties of the rights of the citizen, but as securing to every individual such as he already possessed as a British subject,-such as his ancestors had inherited and defended since the days of Magna Charta. Many of its provisions in the nature of a bill of rights are subject to exceptions, recognized long before the adoption of the constitution, and not interfering at all with its spirit. Such exceptions were obviously intended to be respected. MATTOX v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237 (1895)
What are some of the apparent reasons for changing the system from a “compact” agreement where the people in their sovereign “state” capacity as “parties” to a system where all power was lodged in a “centralized” national governing body?
An 1853 House Judiciary Committee conducted a one-year long inquiry when a group petitioned the government to remove Christianity from our government institutions. On March 27, 1854, that Committee brought the following conclusion:
“Had the people, during the revolution, 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 its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect… In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
Two months later, The House Committee added these words to their previous ones:
“The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The people that created and established the governing mechanisms, they consented to follow, were from the Protestant Christian Faith. They adopted the theory of Law of John Locke, and established a form and system that required accountability, good faith, fair dealings, overall respect for their fellow believers from a similar history and background They adopted and established a justice system from their history protecting their Almighty God given rights, and did not delegate any powers, or permission to act in their name, to anyone to create another form of government subjecting them to a foreign power such as the Roman Civil Law.
Specifically, a delegation of authority which means permission to act, must come from a “higher source”. That is why the people are considered the “sovereign” and their “delegates” are the Public Servants which are under “moral restraint” and personally responsible when they exceed the scope of their delegation.
This system did not serve the “monopolies” or “corporations” which had previously settled and traded with the early settlers and controlled trade and commerce.
CITIZENSHIP
“A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.” [Ex parte. – Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, page 302 (1855)]
Two years after the 14th Article of Amendment to the Constitution was said to have been ratified, the following decision was promulgated by the California Supreme Court:
“I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the [s]tates. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the [federal] United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of [C]itizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the [u]nion.” -People v De La Guerra, 40 Cal 311, 342 [1870];
“No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides. Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.” Kitchens v. Steele: 112 F. Supp. 383, at 386 (1953).
Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey – 6 U.S. 445 (1805) A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States, not being a citizen of a state within the meaning of the provision in the law of the United States regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. These clauses show that the word “state” is used in the Constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.
It appears in the record that the “persons” referenced in the 14th Amendment became “citizens of the Federal Government” and Congress created provisional Statutory “States” of the United States for their United States citizens. The 50 States, as are now referenced, are not the same “States” qualified under Article III in the original organic Constitution presented to people after the Constitutional Conventions.