by: Gary Rea (c)copyright 2010  All Rights Reserved

It is generally supposed, by most Americans, that the Constitution is the founding document of this nation. It is not. In fact, the United States of America was founded with the ratification of our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (Articles of Confederation, for short) on March 1, 1781.

This document was written to secure a union between the original thirteen states and it was written by the states, for the states. In other words, the states created the central government, which consisted of nothing more than a very weak unicameral Congress, composed of not less than two and no more than seven representatives from each state.

The original intent, as laid out in the Articles, was “a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

In short, the Articles represented a voluntary union of friendship and cooperation between the states and nothing more. It was never intended to be another body of government, ruling over the states. In fact, the authors of the Articles greatly feared such a central government.

At the time the Articles were written, in 1776-1777, and for the first two years following their ratification in 1781, the states were at war with Britain. It was during this conflict – against the world’s largest military force – that the Articles were put to the test. They proved to serve the young fledgling republic well through the remainder of the war, which had begun in 1775, when no union yet existed and each state was free and independent of the other states. In fact, when a convention was called for, to be conducted in May of 1787 in Philadelphia, for the stated purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation to “perfect” them and create a “stronger government,” there was much dissent against this, which is typified by this quote from none other than Patrick Henry, who was among the Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist’s Constitution:

“The Confederation; this same despised [by the Federalists] Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war: it rendered us victorious in the that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: it has secured us a territory greater than that any Monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and abandoned for want of energy?”

Henry went on to say:

…great danger [allegedly] would ensue if the [Virginia] Convention rose without adopting…[the Constitution]: I ask, where is the danger? I see none. Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government?…I see great jeopardy in this new Government. I see none from our present one [the Articles of Confederation].”

There were many others, initially, who shared Patrick Henry’s apprehensions of the new Constitution that was being framed by the Federalists.

To quote a modern historian, J.W. Peltason, from his book, Understanding the Constitution, 7th Ed.:

Nor should the accomplishments of the government under the Articles of Confederation be overlooked. It successfully brought the war to a conclusion; negotiated the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which gave the United States de jure status as a nation; established an enduring system for the development of western lands; and refined the practices of interstate cooperation that gave Americans further practical experience in handling national problems.”

And, what of the Federalists, particularly their leader, Alexander Hamilton? As I have said before, Hamilton, who was born and raised in the Caribbean, was an agent of the Rothschilds. Kenneth W. Royce, author of Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance with Big Government, notes Hamilton’s suspicious comings and goings from the Convention with a quote from Farrand’s The Record of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. III, p. 588, (the parenthetical statement is Royce’s insertion):

“[Hamilton] Attended on May 18; left Convention June 29; was in New York after July 2; appears to have been in Philadelphia on July 13 (without attending? Was back in N.Y. By July 26 to write Auldjo); attended Convention August 13; was in New York August 20 – September 2.”

To caution that he’s not the only author who regards Hamilton’s attendance record with suspicion, Royce then reinforces this with a quote from Robert A. Hendrickson’s Hamilton I, p. 483:

Hamilton was back in New York again in late August for mysterious and inscrutable reasons that must have come up quite suddenly: There is no other way to account for his rushing back to Philadelphia and forth to New York again in late August for only a week or so of not very consequential floor appearances…

Now, who was Hamilton seeing in New York who was so important he repeatedly left the Convention for weeks at a time? Well, consider that the great money interests of New York didn’t yet exist. Wall Street didn’t yet exist and neither did the New York Stock Exchange (not founded until 1792). As for the great fortunes of New York’s monopolist “robber barons,” these had yet to be achieved, as well. The Rockefeller dynasty that began with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil wouldn’t exist yet for another century. The same goes for the Astors. The Dupont family wouldn’t start its fortune until 1803. The fortune of the Vanderbilt family of New York began with Cornelius Vanderbilt, who wasn’t born until 1794. So, who does that leave? Well, the Rothschild family had been actively building its fortunes since 1769 when the family’s empire was founded by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who began the dynasty by becoming the money lender to Prince William of Hannau, Germany and who later, in partnership with Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria, helped found and fund the Illuminati, which infiltrated the Masonic lodges of Europe and America. According to Andrew Hitchcock’s The History of the House of Rothschild, in 1790, Mayer Amschel Rothschild stated:

Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.

Furthermore, Hitchcock states that, in 1791, when Freemason George Washington became the first President of the United States, that Rothschild got “control of a nation’s money:”

through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) when they set up a central bank in the USA called the First Bank of the United States.

So, it would seem that Hamilton may have been sneaking off to New York to meet in secret with fellow Rothschild agents.

Even more incriminating than Hamilton’s unexplained comings and goings to and from the Convention, though, are his own words. Writing to fellow Freemason and Federalist George Washington (to whom Hamilton was an aide de camp during the Revolutionary War) from New York on July 3rd, 1787, Hamilton said:

In my passage…I have taken particular pains to discover the public sentiment and I am more and more convinced that this is the critical opportunity for establishing the prosperity of this country on a solid foundation The prevailing apprehension among thinking men [his fellow nationalists] is that the Convention, from a fear of shocking the popular opinion, will not go far enough…A plain and sensible man, in a conversation I had with him yesterday, expressed himself nearly in this manner—The people begin to be convinced that their ‘excellent form of government’ [the Confederation] as they have been used to call it, will not answer their [the Federalists] purpose; and that they must substitute something not very remote from that [a monarchy] which they have lately quitted.

These appearances though they will not warrant a conclusion that the people are yet ripe for such a plan as I advocate, yet serve to prove that there is no reason to despair of their adopting one equally energetic, if the Convention should think proper to propose it. They serve to prove that we ought not to allow too much weight to objections drawn from the repugnancy of the people to such an efficient constitution.

More incriminating, still, are Hamilton’s closing remarks to Washington:

…I fear that we shall let slip the golden opportunity of rescuing the American EMPIRE [my emphasis] from disunion and anarchy and misery…

Now, what do you suppose Hamilton meant by “American Empire” at a time when America was anything but an empire? Remember, we had just fought a war for our independence from what was already fast becoming the world’s largest empire, Britain. The only – and inescapable – conclusion possible is that Hamilton was referring to a hoped for future American empire, yet to be established. But, how would he – and Washington – have known, at the time, that America would, indeed, one day become an empire, unless the Constitution that the Federalists were attempting to install was designed to be the basis for that empire? As Royce says:

Civic Belief #1: Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

Civic Belief #2: The Federal government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

Or, to quote Royce again:

During the ratification debates, sly, theoretical assuagements from the Federalists were the rule: ‘Tyranny could not possibly happen with the Constitution’s checks and balances!’ Folks, there are no real “checks and balances” amongst the three branches of government. No branch has any real motive in restraining the others.

Exactly! Why would they when they are all three a part of the same entity: the federal government, which functions as one entity?

Royce goes on to say that:

The framers well knew that growth in their beloved Federal Government could only be achieved gradually over time in leapfrogging fashion, branch over branch through political sleight-of-hand.

Then there is the 19th century individualist Lysander Spooner, in his book, No Treason (1870):

The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

If there is any lingering doubt of the Federalist’s intentions, here are the Federalists in their own words:

When asked by a Philadelphia woman “What have ye wrought?,” referring to the secret closed door sessions of the Philadelphia Convention, Freemason and Federalist Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.

Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of coercive power” – George Washington to fellow Freemason and Federalist John Jay, August 1, 1786

“…virtue can only be exerted by a strong government. The right of coercion should be expressly declared.” – John Jay to George Washington, April 1787

The great fault of the existing Confederacy is its inactivity. It has never been a complaint against Congress that they have governed overmuch. The complaint has been that they governed too little. To remedy this [supposed] defect, we were sent here [to the Philadelphia Convention].” – James Wilson, Federalist, to the Convention

Contrast Wilson’s statement with that of Thomas Jefferson, who said:

That government which governs best governs least.

The Philadelphia Convention of May to September 1787 was not planned to achieve it’s stated goal of “revising” the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the plan, by the Federalists, was to replace our original constitution with a new one that would allow, over time, a gradually growing central government that would evolve into a global empire.

The deck was deliberately stacked against the defenders of the young republic. Of the 55 delegates to the Convention, 41 were politicians and 34 were lawyers, mostly from the mercantile cities and not the countryside. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least 21 of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy. The authors of the “Virginia Plan,” which included Hamilton and was composed of those who had orchestrated the Convention, in the first place, actually favored abolishing the states. Hamilton is quoted as saying that the states “…might gradually dwindle to nothing.” James Madison, Freemason and Federalist, proposed that the states be “reduced to corporations.” Governor Morris of Pennsylvania said, “This country must be united. If persuasion does not unite, the sword will.”

Only 8 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence attended and only 6 of the signers of the Articles of Confederation were there. Jefferson and John Adams were in Europe, Patrick Henry refused to attend, and Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams and Christopher Gadsen were not chosen as delegates. 14 of the delegates would later resign from the Convention in disgust and go home. So, the remaining 41 delegates, acting against their charter to merely revise the Articles of Confederation, instead scrapped it and replaced it with the foundation of what has become today, unquestionably an empire serving the interests of an international elite. And that, my fellow Americans, is how our republic was murdered in its infancy 223 years ago.