Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Seven|
Al Benson, Jr.
One thing you must have if you desire to perpetrate a conspiracy is a certain amount of secrecy. You may not be able to fool everybody all the time, but you need to be able to fool enough of them so that almost no one knows what you have done until it is "set in concrete" so to speak. Therefore, should there be any written evidence or proof of what you have done, it must be kept from the public at least long enough for the damage you've done to become firmly entrenched so that it is almost impossible to undo it. Awhile back, we found out that Roosevelt had, indeed, known the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that he failed to warn those generals in command there (after all, he needed scapegoats). What can be done about that now except to write about it as one more example of how the American people have been lied to and duped? And the Martin Luther King tapes--not to be released until fifty years after his death? At that point, who will be around that had anything to do with those events? No doubt those tapes will make lascivious history--but so what? Whatever was done during those years cannot be remedied now.
In regard to such secrecy Gary North wrote an article back in March of 2006 called The Most Successful Fraud in American History. He commented about those at the Constitutional Convention who took notes about the proceedings. He stated: "No member of the Convention ever revealed what went on behind those closed doors. This included opponents of the Constitution. Luther Martin of Maryland, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, opposed the Convention's plan within days of his participation. He kept notes of the debates, but his notes were not published until 1838, two years after Madison's death, the last member of the Convention to die. Martin's notes were published along with Robert Yates' notes, who also attended and opposed what had been done there: Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Today, this book is unread by most graduate students of the era, let alone by the general public. I cannot find it on-line in text form, just offers to sell copies of the book. [PDF Scan of Book] When a document of this level of historical importance is not on-line for free, the memory hole is still operating. Madison turned over his notes to George Washington, who took them back to Mount Vernon. Madison knew that no one would or could force Washington to surrender them. His notes were not published until 1845." That's just sixteen years before the War of Northern Aggression.
And North asks the question--"What would have kept opponents like Yates and Martin from publishing? One explanation is obvious, yet rarely mentioned by historians: The member took a vow of secrecy. That was an era in which oaths were taken seriously." You might well ask the question--"If they kept it all secret, what were they afraid of?" They were afraid of "We the people" that's what they were afraid of. They were afraid that if people found out too soon what had been perpetrated on them they might rise up and repudiate the results, and these men, most of them anyway, would have to start all over again with yet another scheme.
American political writer, Bill Kauffman, wrote in 2009 in somewhat of a humorous strain: "I am sorry to say, Dr. Franklin, that we did not keep the Republic. We blew it. Luther Martin warned us this was going to happen. The conservative shibboleth when objecting to egregious acts in Washington has long been 'It's unconstitutional!' The Anti-Federalists would have told you that such 'unconstitutional' interventions were inevitable...If we cannot undue 1787 at least we can cut the Constitutionolatry and acknowledge as ancestors the Anti-Federalists, those forgotten localist patriots who stood for small things, for liberty, for their homes, against the assault of centralization."
In a more serious vein, Kauffman observed: "Happiness is preferable to the splendors of a national Government,' said Luther Martin, in vain, to a Constitutional Convention whose delegates, forgetting modesty, aimed at glory and grandeur."
As to the theological mindset of many of the delegates, Kauffman noted: "The primary architects and defenders of the document were grandiose universalists who believed, as Gouvernor Morris told the Constitutional Convention, that they came here as...representative(s) of the whole human race." Now that is just a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Why not do what you were delegated to do "as unto the Lord" and leave the results to Him?
You have to ask yourself, why did some of the men sent to Philadelphia merely to revise and reform the Articles of Confederation think of themselves in such lofty terms? Obviously they had a mindset that reflected a worldview that was well beyond what they had been delegated to do. I reflect back to one point in the conversations I had with Rev. Ennio Cugini years ago now regarding the Constitutional Convention. Pastor Cugini remarked to me: "There were some anti-Christs at that Convention." With some sober, and not especially happy reflection, I have to believe that he was right.
To be continued.
Also see the other parts of this series by Al Bensn, Jr.:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
If you found this article interesting, you might also like:
What is States' Rights by Mike Crane
Al Benson, Jr. is a veteran columnist and activist. He is publisher of the Copperhead Chronicle newsletter which features commentary and analyses of history, culture, education, and faith. Mr. Benson, is author of the Homeschool History Series," a collection of booklets that discuss ignored facts about the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Additionally, he and Walter D. Kennedy are co-authors of Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War. Mr. Benson's columns can be read at: AlBensonJr.Com, Mr. Benson's Blog, and FireEater.Org