There were people who admired monarchy and centralized government from the very beginning in America, not all the Tories left for England after the Revolutionary War. Some, who didn’t want to serve the King of England, still thought we needed a king of our own to compete effectively with Europe. Only a strong government, they reasoned, could protect America. They idolized the powerful lion of England and didn’t realize that freemen and women and decentralized control functioned more like a swarm. You need a lion to exert dominance and control but a swarm can kill the strongest lion once it is roused. America, its local communities, its armed citizens and militias, were the swarm of freedom that could not be crushed or bludgeoned into submission. Swarms disperse and reform and sting again. But even then, some did not understand the power and endurance that lay in decentralization. This idea of a powerful central government is still with us and today, and thanks to a public school system that never effectively taught American Political philosophy, we no longer know what America was supposed to be about. Unless we have read the debates of the constitutional convention that formed it. Indeed, the very school system that was formed was made to re-educate us to live in an America governed not by freemen and farmers but in a nation of corporations, railroads, and factories and to be good wage-slaves who followed the work bell and served the time clock. In that respect, the public education system has succeeded in its task.
Welcome Freedom Troopers! Like Paul Revere’s ride to warn of the approaching redcoats this is gonna be a long hard one tonight. But bear with me and I think you’ll come out of it with a better understanding of where we have come from and where people are trying to make us go to. [For more on how our education system has failed us, once you’re done here go see the series: The World Built In the Last 150 Years Is Broken – SabersEdge – Cutting Through the Lies to Get to the Truth ; Who Stole Your Education? Were You Indoctrinated in Ignorance? – SabersEdge – Cutting Through the Lies to Get to the Truth ; Awaken the Lions! Have We Been Domesticated? – SabersEdge – Cutting Through the Lies to Get to the Truth ; Think In a Way That Has A Future! – SabersEdge – Cutting Through the Lies to Get to the Truth ]
The Bait and Switch of American Principles
It’s hard to talk about this issue of “what is America and what was it meant to be?” because nearly everyone has been so misinformed about history, our government, and the intentions of the founders, that we think our “re-education” is the way it always was and how it should be. Most of us don’t realize how we’ve been played and even some of those who spread the misinformation don’t know that is what they are doing. They think they are being true to America. Once you’ve read this you will have to be the judge as to whether America made a wrong turn at the hands of a corporate railroad lawyer who became president and changed the entire direction of the country (Abraham Lincoln). From that point on, everything began to change like the fall of dominoes.
Today, the misinformation has to be intentional misinformation because the debates of the Constitutional Convention and private correspondence of the founders have always been available for review and, in my mind, influencers have an obligation to research what they are talking about and influencing people for.
America and our founders have been deliberately misrepresented. People have even said “We don’t know what they were thinking” especially considering the Bill of Rights. This is absolute bullshit! (“Pardon my French.” as an officer friend of mine used to say.) We know more about what they were thinking than we do of what our current Congress and the Senate are thinking when they pass a bill in this age of misinformation, disinformation, and lies. The founders were intentional about leaving a paper trail for future generations so there would be no confusion. But our educators, professors, and government either have not bothered reading them or they are liars. As always, my valiant cavaliers, I have you covered and have done the research, so you don’t have to.
A few years ago, before he was president, Biden said in a live interview that the Chinese dictatorship was a better way to govern in the modern world. Despite his view that the CCP ran their country better than America did, thanks to the complicity of media in covering for him and Google for hiding the search results, Biden (the Communist and tyrannical sympathizer),was elected president.
Two Opposing Views – Centralized or Decentralized Power
Freedom or Control
Today, well-meaning people totally misrepresent the foundation of America. A misrepresentation that began over 150 years ago with the War for Southern Independence. Nearly everyone has been told this war was all about slavery although nearly everyone denied that at the time. It is a major bait and switch in our history that keeps us from asking the wrong (or the right,) questions about the conflict. The war and the politics around it were absolutely necessary to make way for building the American Financial Empire that exists today. Anyone who tries to explain the situation and attitudes of the South or the anti-war party of the North, at the time is dismissed as a “lost cause” theorist or a “racist.” Today, those are the major ways they marginalize anyone who tries to bring out the truth of what the war was about. Slavery was a major aggravating factor in North/South relations. But we will talk about that later. For now, let’s look at what this country was founded upon.
There were two ways of viewing America from the start. There was the view that wanted a strong central government to compete with the nations of Europe and those who wanted freedom and liberty in a decentralized system that respected the rights of the people and the states. This is often referred to as a Jeffersonian vs. Lincolnian republic. The debate continues today, it exploded into a bloody civil war in 1861 and President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis said the issues that brought about the war would resurface eventually because these issues were not settled by the conflict…an odd thing to say if the war was about slavery because that was the issue that WAS settled by the war.
In my discussion today I will draw heavily on the response of William J. Watkins – The Nature of the Union: A Response to Mark Pulliam’s views of the nature of the union based upon Lincoln and Joseph Story’s views of what the Union is all about. I will state my own bias clearly. I agree with President’s Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, and Mr. Watkins.
Nullification of Unconstitutional Usurpation of Authority
Pulliam’s view criticizes Libertarians and State’s Rights claims that the States can nullify unconstitutional laws issued by the Federal Government. Watkins summarizes his view as:
‘Pulliam sets forth his main principle as follows: “My objection is limited to the notion that state officials have the authority to declare federal actions (laws, regulations, policies, and court decisions) ‘null and void‘ if the state deems them unconstitutional.” He further complains that nullification is “secession-lite” and has no place in American constitutionalism. He plants his flag on the Supremacy Clause: “states [cannot] interfere with the enforcement of federal law or unilaterally override the federal courts’ interpretation of the Constitution and federal statutes.” The heresy of secession and nullification, he tells us, “undermines our union and misreads the Constitution.” ‘
Watkins continues:
‘Pulliam’s fundamental problem is that he embraces Joseph Story’s view of the union, i.e., that it was formed by one people—the American people—and not by the people of the several states. Pulliam probably would agree with Lincoln’s claims that the union preceded the independence of the states and thus is paramount. This Story/Lincoln view of the union might make for chest-thumping Fourth of July speeches, but it has little grounding in American history.’ – William J. Watkins – The Nature of the Union: A Response to Mark Pulliam’s views
I believe Pulliam’s views are based on a reading of the Constitution, without considering the debate that brought it about, which in my mind amounts to willful ignorance of the debates because they would be easy to find if he looked. And a scholar who is going to speak on an issue should look. I do not know him, but I know the information that would be available to him if he had looked. Watkins does know him and says he is a good guy, and they generally agree…but not this time. When the Constitution was written the former colonies had just fought a war for nearly a decade against the greatest super-power the Earth knew at the time: The British Empire and the founders wanted the record to be clear to future generations as to why they had fought, what they hoped to accomplish, and what the dangers were.
I believe, from reading the text and the debates that were had around the Constitutional Convention that preventing the tyranny we experience today from our government was foremost on their minds. They did not fight and die in the Revolution to simply change tyrants. They wanted to be free.
Safeguards Against Un-Constitutional Usurpation
They put multiple safeguards against tyranny in the constitution’s very construction. Today we tend to the think that only the Supreme Court is empowered to assess constitutionality, however, the founding fathers made it clear that it was everyone’s duty. The President could veto any bill he felt was unconstitutional, the Senate, representing the States could vote down anything proposed by the House they felt was unconstitutional and the House could do the same for the Senate. Beyond the Federal Government the States were a further safeguard against un-constitutional law or action as it was the states that had formed the union in the first place. Leaving it was not only assumed it was expressly stated as valid to the states that were considering entry and ratification of the new constitution. Finally, the Free Press was supposed to keep everyone straight (a job it has utterly failed at today,) and the people themselves were the final arbiter of their own rights and that is why the founders again and again stated that any weapon available to the government had to be available to the people as well. Private ships did carry cannon and after fighting wars the Federal Army tended to give its unused cannons to State and local militias – as they did after the Mexican American War.
Are We One People or An IDEA?
So many who have the views Pulliam does view Americans as one people. I suppose it is a reasonable mistake if you have spent your whole life living in one state, or even one county. But if you travel the country (and wander off the interstate corridors or beyond airports or tourist traps,) you will find that the cultures and even language of the peoples called American are so diverse you may have trouble understanding them at first listen. The cultural differences from Cajuns, to the Bronx, to Maine, to Arizona, and from Puerta Rico to American Samoa can become much clearer to you if you join the military where everyone is thrust together into one uniform existence. This was all hidden after the Civil War when the government consciously changed the terminology from “these United States” to “the United States” and later created a “loyalty oath” in the pledge of allegiance that early Americans would have viewed as an insult. The Pledge itself is an effort at changing the way we think about the Union, and it has been very successful in changing our nation. We were never so much one people as “an idea” and that idea has been changed for us.
Watkin’s addresses the Story/Lincoln/Pulliam idea that the “American People” and the single Union predated the Constitution (the Italics and bold type are added by me for emphasis):
“Suppose the union existed prior to the Declaration of Independence or came into existence as a result of the Declaration. Why did the Continental Congress insist that the states confederate through the Articles of Confederation? If a union already existed, a formal confederation would be silly. Moreover, Article III of the Confederation describes it as “a firm league of friendship.” Such a relationship can exist only between sovereign and independent states—it is an ultra vires description if some binding, preexisting union existed.
“One should also examine Article IV, which endeavors “to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union.” These words recognize the existence of thirteen different peoples, not one amalgamated American people.
“Further proof debunking the Story/Lincoln view of the Constitution is the Treaty of Paris (1783), [ending the revolution against Great Britain,] in which [King] George III recognized the 13 states to be “free sovereign and independent states . . . [so that] he treats with them as such.” As indicated by the peace treaty, the official outcome of the Revolutionary War was the independence of 13 states, not the autonomy of some preexisting union.”
Ultra vires, used above is a Latin phrase that is still used in law to describe an act that can only be done with LEGAL AUTHORITY but is actually done without it. In other words, it means acting outside the scope of the legitimate authority, power, or scope granted by the law, contract, or agreement that it is found in. The opposite term intra vires, means operating within the scope, jurisdiction, and legitimate authority of your position or office. We saw a great deal of “ultra vires” actions during the pandemic by many jurisdictions and offices without the power or authority to do what they did. Today our government continues to act beyond its constitutional authority. There is no other reason that the FBI, Homeland Security, and other Law Enforcement would define people who support and believe in the constitution as terrorists. It is a de jure admission that the government of the United States is no longer acting according to its constitutional authority and its legitimacy has come into question.
Just Powers Are From the Consent of the Governed
These United States
You probably were not taught in school what we were back in the 60s and 70s. It was a lesson that was drilled into us again and again and once more when we joined the army. Any law, order, ordinance, or act that is unconstitutional is illegal and illegitimate. The government itself derives its authority and power from the people through the constitution. It is the highest law in the land upon which all law and order is based. A government of, by, and for the people based upon the consent of the governed. Therefore, without the Constitution there is no legitimate law and no legitimate order. If they abandon its limitations and structure, then they are no longer the legitimate government of these United States.
However, the history of our public government-based education system is a history of attempting to change the relationship of the people to the government and the government in WDC to the states and the people as well. The White House ceased to be “the people’s house” as it was called in the 1800s until the Civil War and it became “the President’s House.” In the civil war soldiers would walk into the white house and sit at a desk and use the stationary because it was “the people’s house.” Now, we are fenced off by fences, electronics, and over a thousand armed guards. Security needs have indeed changed. But so has the attitude and relationship between the people and the President and the government in Washington, D.C.
Watkins continues waxing eloquent about the peoples of These United States, their authority, and sovereign nature:
“Moving to the Constitution of 1787, it had to be ratified in separate state conventions. The Framers understood that the ultimate sovereigns—those charged with making, altering, or abolishing fundamental law—were the people in their 13 separate preexisting communities. However, they also realized that some political communities might decide to remain outside the new union. Accordingly, once nine states ratified the Constitution, it then went into effect among those states. The other four could join the union or chart their courses. Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify until long after the other eleven. They thus remained outside the union for a time.”
“But what about the Preamble? Story often pointed to the Constitution’s Preamble, which declares, “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [Yet] the initial draft of the Preamble listed the 13 states separately, supporting the view that each state’s ultimate sovereigns had to approve the Constitution. This was changed to its current form when the Framers realized that all 13 might not ratify. However, there is nothing in the records of the Philadelphia Convention to indicate a change in theory. Hence, the Preamble does not help the nationalists [or centrists]. Suppose the people of the several states—in their highest sovereign capacities—are the parties to the constitutional compact. In that case, nullification and secession are grounded in American history and the American constitutional tradition. They are not crackpot ideas, as Pulliam paints them, to be disregarded. Indeed, secession is at the heart of American independence. The 13 colonies removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the Mother Country (that is, they seceded). Secession is the bedrock of our political existence.”
In other words, true believers, if people didn’t have the right to say “No” to their government; if we didn’t have the right to secede; if governments did not derive their JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed, we would still be part of the BRITISH COMMONWEALTH under the KING of ENGLAND. This is the ultimate derailing of any stand that denies the right of a people to secession. Indeed, there have always been some who believed this way, In the Revolutionary days we called them Tories. Now we call them Neo-Cons like former US Secretary of State George Schultz who I remember telling the media: “The United States can recognize no government founded in revolution as being legitimate.” That takes a special kind of stupid for an American to say. To be generous lets suppose he meant to say “no government founded in Communist revolution as being legitimate.” But, to my memory, he never corrected himself.
Several of the states, including New York (the largest,) and Rhode Island (the smallest,) were unwilling to sign to the American Experiment unless they could secede. The members of the convention assured everyone that signing was voluntary and, of course, states could withdraw voluntarily. They thought this, like the rights in the Bill of Rights, really “went without saying” because they were so obvious. That is why some opposed the Bill of Rights, not because they opposed the rights but they thought they were so obvious it was a waste of time. (Interestingly, when the Southern Confederacy wrote their version of the Constitution the Bill of Rights were not amendments but part of the actual text of the Constitution.) This was assumed by nearly everyone even throughout most of the Civil War – except by Lincoln and his legions. After the war, they set about legitimating the war and its changes to the American way of life to obscure the tyranny they had created. Sure, they had removed chattel slavery of blacks and in return all of us became wage slaves to the robber barons and our “God-given rights” that government was formed to protect began slipping through our fingers.
Secession and Its History
As Lt. Colonel Walter H. Taylor, Adjutant General to the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, and essentially General Robert E. Lee’s Chief of Staff wrote General Lee, His Campaigns in Virginia 1861-1865 from which his quotes are taken. “Although the claim of the right of a State to secede from the Union has been once and forever decided in the negative by the arbitrament of arms, in a long and bitterly contested war, it is, nevertheless, generally conceded by impartial students of history that when the original thirteen British colonies in America, which afterward became the United States, severed the ties that bound them to Great Britain and declared themselves free and independent States, the compact then formed for mutual protection and defense was not regarded as indissoluble.”
He talks about the history of secession and the attitudes of the states:
“the founders of the Union, who were jealous concerning the rights of the States, and who, time and again, combated the idea that the United States was a nation in the usual acceptation of the word, and who resisted any attempted encroachment upon the rights of the States not expressly delegated to the general government. The State was sovereign; the Union was an alliance between sovereigns. Nowhere was this matter of State sovereignty more emphasized and more jealously guarded than in the State of Virginia. The young men of the State were early imbued with the doctrine of States’ rights, and while the people of Massachusetts, of New York, of the Carolinas, and of the other States were their friends, their own people were Virginians, and their country was Virginia.
“The first suggestion of secession as a remedy for alleged grievances, and the first threat to exercise that right came from the New England States. In 1803 the people of Massachusetts regarded unfavorably the acquisition of the territory of Louisiana, as in 1811 they opposed the admission into the Union of the State of Louisiana, and in 1843 the admission into the Union of the State of Texas; and her public men spoke freely of the right to secede from the Union, and clearly intimated that the circumstances might arise that would cause Massachusetts to separate from the other states. [I have noticed in History that much of American History seems to be powered by the idea that the Northeastern States think they know what is best for America and insist on having their own way no matter what the rest of the country think. – Daniel.] During the war between the United States and Great Britain in 1812, the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island opposed the war, refused to furnish troops, and threatened to secede from the Union should certain conditions arise.
“The attitude assumed by South Carolina in 1832, because of dissatisfaction with the Revenue Laws [this was a massive increase in taxation amounting to between 30-80% increase protecting the resources produced by the West and the North but leaving Cotton and agricultural products produced by the South unprotected,] again threatened the integrity of the Union; it was then developed that there existed a pronounced difference of opinion among the leading men in public life upon this momentous question…Wise counsels prevailed, however, and happily, this matter was adjusted without a rupture.” p.2-3, Taylor
Later, concerning the flag and the United States, Taylor writes of the firing on Fort Sumter:
“Many people at the North contended that the firing on the flag [on 12 April 1861 at Fort Sumter] was a cause for war. It was a strained manifestation of offended pride; no such ebullition of temper attended the first “insult to the flag,” when on the 9th of January the Star of the West with the flag of the Union at the peak, was fired on as she attempted to carry provisions to the garrison at Fort Sumter; but now the “irrepressible conflict” was to be inaugurated, and it was necessary to do everything possible to rouse the war-spirit of the people.“
This is what is most key for us today because it shows how very very differently our views of America are from those of the founders and Americans in the first hundred years. Too often today we act as if everyone always thought as we do today. Colonel Taylor continued:
The Banner of These United States
“It is begging the whole question to treat the flag as a symbol of sovereignty or the ensign of a nation. The Union was not a nation; the United States was a confederation, not a kingdom. The flag was a composite banner in which every State had part and representation. At that time the Union was composed of thirty-three States, of which eighteen were free and fifteen were slave. Seven of the Southern States had seceded; all the others, as well as the border States, were opposed both to the policy of secession and to the exercise of force to maintain the Union. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri refused to honor Mr. Lincoln’s call for volunteers. Maryland was opposed to it, and suggested a truce and arbitration. Here were fourteen States to whom the flag belonged as much as to the other nineteen, and they saw themselves NO OCCASION FOR WAR [emphasis mine and not Major Taylors.] There was no question here of national pride or honor, no alien had done dishonor to the flag; no State had been invaded by hostile foe…the ugly fact stands out to view that in that epoch of the history of our country a rude shock was given to the maintenance of the principles of government for which we had successfully contended in the revolution against the rule of England. The fundamental idea, the basic principle of the Declaration of Independence was completely subverted; the assumption that all governments derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed was conveniently relegated to the deepest oblivion, and the growth of the principle that was the antithesis of this, which was then implanted, has been so insidious and so increasing that we have today the spectacle of a Republic of States embarked on the establishment of remote colonies, whose alien races are averse to our rule, and who are kept in subjection by force of arms, with only an occasional remonstrance in the councils of the party in power. And, whereas, the safety and perpetuity of the Union were deemed by its founders to be involved in the RIGID ADHERENCE to the lines then laid down concerning the rights reserved to the States and the limited powers delegated to the general government, in a strict maintenance of the dual system of government agreed upon [the balance of state vs. Federal government,] …there was then inaugurated a movement tending to the enlargement of the powers of the general government and a dwarfing of the rights of the States that has continued to grow, and today finds expression and fruition in the bold usurpation of legislative powers by the Executive, and in a number of acts of Congress conferring upon the general government powers once considered inherent and exclusive in the States, tending toward a centralization of government and an obliteration of State lines… The grievances that led to the revolt of the thirteen American colonies where no more serious than those that prompted the secession of the eleven Southern States from the Union [in the Civil War – nor are they more serious than the issues facing us today. We will look at this more closely at a future date. – Daniel.] p.11-13, Taylor
So, that is how the States of the Union used to be viewed. A Republic of States as a confederacy and alliance of sovereign States [here we need to be reminded that the very word State refers to a sovereign government or nation and that term was chosen for exactly that reason by the original colonies. The Union was an alliance of sovereign nations who banded together for mutual protection beneath the amalgamated banner of the Stars and Stripes. It was for this reason that when the Southern States seceded the “took the stars and stripes to which they were entitled” from the national flag to make their own. That is why the Confederate Flag had three stripes, because three of the southern states that composed the Confederacy had been among the original thirteen colonies and were represented by three of the 13 stipes on the Union’s banner.
Back to Pulliam and Watson and their debate on the relationship of the States and the government in Washington (I hope the discussion above has shown you that those who were in the American Union did not always think as we have been conditioned to think today,) and brings light to the issues regarding the supremacy clause and the relationship of the states and WDC that we are discussing.
I know this is complex but these issues are important and I ask you to bear with me and hold these complex ideas in tension because they are absolutely important to our continued freedom and our existence as a free people. Watkins brings up as a counter to Pulliam Alexander Hamilton’s view that he expressed in the Federalist Paper number 28:
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
The Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions
Fighting a Corrupted Vision
Watkins addresses the issue of the supremacy clause and those who find supremacy in Washington D.C. this way:
“All the Supremacy Clause really declares is that statutes made pursuant to the Constitution are supreme law throughout the union. The real question is who has the final word on whether a statute is consistent with the Constitution. Pulliam believes that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. This cannot be if the people of the several states are the principals and the federal government is merely their agent. An agent cannot have greater authority than his principal to determine the scope of the agent’s power. The agent would be rendered greater than the principal!”
In other words this would be like saying when you hire a lawyer to defend you the lawyer can decide to sell your house, your property, or all of your possessions without consulting you. That is what it means for an agent to have more power than the principal. The States created the Federal Government to provide for the common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty (their God-given rights,) for themselves and their descendents just as we hire an attorney to protect our rights in court. It makes no sense for the attorney to suddenly become more powerful than the one who hired them. That is why attorneys are called “counselor” and not “lord.”
Watkins then addresses how Pulliam attacks the Principles of 1798 found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (both of which I think are important texts about our rights in America.) These were spurred by the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to criticize the Presidency of John Adams. These acts, actually were instrumental in bringing Thomas Jefferson into the Presidency (where he made the international slave trade illegal in America.) Watkins not only quotes but says that he “loves” the opening words of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution:
Resolved,That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general Government for special purposes,—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . .
“As for the remedy, Jefferson and Madison pointed to nullification and interposition, declaring the Acts void and of no force.” Watkins writes and further quotes the Kentucky Resolution that:
Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, [or legally granted – such as today we often see in gubernatorial and presidential executive orders – not all executive orders but if an elected official seems to be reigning by decree that is certainly a modern warning sign – a warning that either our government is not working or we have a dictator] a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact,
casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.
I see Jefferson as fairly consistent and realistic. Although he recognized political and strategic realities Jefferson’s political thought is remarkably consistent and he espoused similar views in his Summary View of the Rights of British North America, in which Jefferson declared multiple acts of the British Parliament “void” because “the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.” Neither Kentucky nor Virginia actually nullified a federal law in this instance, but the legacy of these resolutions goes much farther than just nullification. [Let me know, Freedom Troopers, in the comments, if it would help you for me to post a page of links to American Historical Documents that I talk about in my articles.]
Pulliam then argues that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions are not actually precedent because they were written before the Supreme Court established judicial review (and he might have added “they only came from the states” when he clearly presupposes the supremacy of the Federal government). Pulliam writes: “The Supreme Court had not yet established the doctrine of judicial review, pursuant to which laws can be challenged on appeal on the grounds they violate the Constitution. This did not happen until 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.”
However, Watkins argues that:
“Judicial review was not some new doctrine created by John Marshall. Numerous state courts had exercised judicial review before 1803. In other articles, I have chronicled the rise of judicial review and have shown that it was not some shiny new toy made by Marshall. The doctrine of judicial review has nothing to do with the question of who has final authority to interpret the constitutional compact. Marbury, rightly understood, merely holds the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government and should take note of the Constitution when interpreting a congressional statute.”
“In the early national period, the principles of the Resolutions gained acceptance throughout the United States. During conflicts between state and national authorities, reports and resolutions adopted by state legislatures, messages from state executives, opinions of state courts, and speeches of leading citizens all ring with the words of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In my book [Watkins writes,] Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (2004), Chapter 4 discusses in detail how states across the union appealed to the Resolutions and embraced them. I discuss specific examples in Pennsylvania, New England, South Carolina, and so forth. [I need to buy this book and read it, I’ll let you know.]”
“Pulliam ignores all this” Watkins says, “and points to James Madison, who in the 1830s denied that he and Jefferson were serious about declaring a federal law void. Madison is a poor witness because he lied and got caught in a lie. Madison denied that Jefferson had ever used the word “nullification” in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution. However, when a copy of the original draft was located with “nullification” in the text, it showed that Madison was dishonest. At this time in his career, he was promoting himself as the Father of the Constitution and wanted to distance himself from his bold stances in the 1790s.”
Watkins says Pulliam claims that the doctrine of nullification has never worked in America but points out this is untrue writing:
“When South Carolina nullified the two protective tariffs in 1832, it followed the Jeffersonian model. South Carolinians opposed protective tariffs, as Jefferson did the Alien and Sedition Acts, on constitutional grounds. They believed that the powers delegated to the general government were trust powers rather than plenary and were consequently limited to the object of the trust. Thus tariffs could only be levied to raise revenue for the legitimate expenses of government. The people of South Carolina called a special convention to exercise ultimate sovereignty. After somber deliberation, the convention issued an ordinance of nullification, voiding the tariffs.”
He continues:
“A political compromise was reached in the Senate whereby tariff rates were lowered. South Carolina was satisfied with this good-faith effort and rescinded its nullification ordinance. South Carolina did not get the full loaf it wanted—no protective tariffs—but did get half of a loaf in the form of reduced duties. I’d call this a win. Yes, Andrew Jackson took a reckless and bellicose stand against South Carolina. He threatened an invasion of the state, but this never happened because of the Senate’s work.
What about 1798? The Resolutions led to the “Revolution of 1800,” during which the Democratic-Republicans won a 24-seat majority in the House of Representatives, and Jefferson was elected to the presidency. Upon taking office, Jefferson suspended all pending prosecutions under the Sedition Act and pardoned those convicted under the unconstitutional legislation. I’d call that a win for liberty, too.
Mark Pulliam’s bottom line is this: “In a republic, the solution is constructive civic engagement, not futile resistance—unless, of course, the goal is disunion.” ‘
I think this next part of Watkins text deserves special emphasis:
“It seems that constructive and civil engagement implies working within a system that is biased against many in middle America. With the complex and ongoing issues related to demographic changes and political power dynamics, meaningful engagement appears to be increasingly difficult. One political side, in particular, appears to have strengthened its influence in national affairs with the rise and popularity of socialist ideas, which reduces the motivation for broader dialogue.
Issues such as the evolving understanding of gender, the rights of minors, and the prioritization of various freedoms make it difficult to find common ground. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic, but without significant changes, it feels like the rest of the country may follow California’s lead in these areas.
What Future for Freedom?
Watkins concludes that:
“The only hope “normies” have of living in a society that our parents/grandparents might recognize is the use of inventive measures that include nullification, secession, and other theories. The odds of taking America back or “making it great again” are about the same as hitting the mega million jackpot- in theory, it is possible. Still, in reality, it is not likely. (Yes, I’ll still buy my proverbial lottery ticket and dream, but I have no plans of giving up my day job either).
While saving the country is a long shot, we might be able to retain a life of “the good” in some states situated in flyover country. This is where real hope is found. Montesquieu was correct when he taught that republican government cannot exist on a large scale. This history of the United States proves his dictum. Mark Pulliam can engage in civic discourse with the victimhood coalition (and I wish him success). While he does that, I’ll take my stand with Mr. Jefferson and the Principles of 1798. Could this bring the disunion that Pulliam dreads? Yes. And that might be our best chance of salvaging something of the American experiment with self-government.”
I know this was an unusually long post and I thought of splitting it into two articles but chose not to. If you made it this far than I applaud you. Your stubbornness is on a par with mine. 😉
While this summary of Watkins seems to me to be fairly negative I think at this time we need to focus on making the upcoming Presidential Election “too big to rig” and we must not allow ANY chance of a narrative that people just didn’t show up to vote. If they are going to overthrow our liberty and steal our freedom let us all vow to make them WORK FOR IT and not hand it to them on a platter of apathy or discouragement. We know from history that corrupt tyrants never give up their power willingly and they don’t go quietly. So, even if we win a landslide it will just be the start of the fight and not the end of it. We need to be clear about that and not deceive ourselves.
The media has steadily attacked statements that the 2020 election was rigged while simultaneously saying 2016 was rigged by Russian interference. They constantly expose themselves in their own lies. They say no cases were shown of election fraud, but this is no longer true. In truth, it was only true on a technicality. The courts never looked at the fraud issues repeatedly dismissing cases on technicality and refusing to even look at the evidence. To me, this showed more clearly than anything that they were afraid of what they would find and therefore they had to suppress the entire case and not let it go to trial. Some may not agree but that is my take on it. You must make up your own mind.
I hope that this gives you food for thought and a deeper understanding of the issue of the Federal Government and the states. I have included a video about the Jeffersonian vs. Lincolnian views of government if you want more information or a better understanding. Until next time, keep you sabers sharp. As the song says:
Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure that goes Ridin’ A Raid
Song: RIDIN’ A RAID – (An old Cavalry Song of the Cavalry Corp of the Army of Northern Virginia)
‘Tis old Stonewall, the Rebel, that leans on that sword
And while we are mounting, prays low to the Lord
Now each cavalier that loves honor and right
Let him follow the feather of Stuart tonight
Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure that goes Ridin’ A Raid
Now gallop, now gallop, to swim or to ford
Old Stonewall, still watchin’, prays low to the Lord
Good-bye, dear old Rebel! The river’s not wide
And Maryland’s lights in her window to guide
Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure that goes Ridin’ A Raid
There’s a man in the White House with blood on his mouth!
If there’s knaves in the North, there are braves in the South
We are three thousand horses and not one afraid
We are three thousand sabers and not a dull blade!
Come tighten your girth and slacken your rein
Come buckle your blanket and holster again
Try the click of your trigger and balance your blade
For he must ride sure that goes Ridin’ A Raid