TL;DR - The purported virtues of the American constitution and its famous co-conspirators, EXPOSED!

It has now been around 19 years since my focused journey toward liberty began. It started by direct exposure to military corruption. Then led to a strict constitutionalist mindset. While researching material that supported constitutionalism, I discovered inconsistencies between what I had been taught since I was a child, all the way up to that point in my adult life (including 10 years on active duty within the US military). A pursuit of truth is what has been my driving force, though. So when I could no longer dismiss the very uncomfortable hidden history that I stumbled upon... That frustration was intensified and became my passion. That is, to re-learn/un-learn that which had been so much of what I [thought] I had a very good grasp of. The consequences of what we are taught about statism and all that supports its perpetuation were exposed. There was/is no turning back from that. Once you know, to evade those truths equates to mental suicide. I am unwilling to evade. I MUST pursue and SHARE the truth.

I will share a lot of detail that paints an entirely different picture than the mythology of what was alleged to have happened in the early so-called founding era. Such as the propaganda that was used to dupe society into accepting what they were being told, rather than resisting and proclaiming TRUE liberty.

Statism is evil. There is no flavor of statism that is compatible with Liberty. None! Not even in a minimal or so-called "constitutionally limited" capacity.

One cannot enter into this area of study with blinders on. It is wholly insufficient to proceed if you are not willing to recognize sacred cows and cognitive dissonance for what they are. Prepare to be offended (even as I was)... But if you seek to place truth above preference... Then I hope you will find this thread useful. Ask questions. Challenge what I post. But please do not argue for the sake of arguing. Approach with intellectual honesty; or don't chime in at all.

The detail below is JUST THE BEGINNING.

I hope this turns into a nice healthy discussion.

~ For Li₿erty!

🐸

My focused journey toward liberty began around 2003/4 while I was on active duty in the Marine Corps. At that time, I had a few years remaining and would eventually end my contract with the US military after 10 years and 10 days on “active duty.” The underlying reasons of my departure were deeply rooted in how my independent studies were revealing many inconsistencies and contradictions as it related to my previously held outlook on socio-political and geo-political generally accepted norms.

Around that time, I stumbled upon an article that referenced a book that I had never heard of. A collection of meeting transcripts and notes from some of the constitutional convention attendees who were in fact dissenters of the proposed system. Prior to this, I had never even heard of there being any attendees who dissented and even departed before the conclusion of the convention. It was also quite interesting to read about a claim that the convention was held in secret, with locked doors, and no general public awareness of its proceedings. This obviously challenged my presuppositions of a convention that was established at the “will of the people,” and “by the consent of the governed.” This piqued my curiosity.

At that time, this book: “Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787, for the Purpose of Forming the Constitution of the United States of America” (quite a title!), was not available as an online resource. Thankfully, it was available to be ordered in a reprinted paperback from the University of Michigan, and I ordered a copy of it.

The book contains the notes made by New York delegates Robert Yates and John Lansing. Both of which were themselves members of the convention. Also contained are comments made by Luther Martin, who was also a convention member, as he described his account of the convention in Philadelphia to the Maryland legislature.

Fast forward to 2021 and it can now be viewed for free, online at: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=idQ9AAAAIAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP6

It is often said that “history is always written by the winners.” Although I had some limited knowledge of the anti-federalist arguments during the period surrounding the ratification of the federal constitution; I did not have awareness of what was discussed regarding the concerns that were expressed during the convention, and within its walls, beyond that which was provided to us in Madison’s notes, a few letters between some of them later in life, or via the federalist papers… The value and importance of this other version of history became very apparent to me as it gives us a glimpse into a more thorough insight into what had taken place during the convention. This as opposed to the one-sided account which the winners of that so-called debate essentially owned the official narrative of.

Madison’s complete notes were not shared nor published until after his death in 1836. The notes of the other 3 attendees mentioned were not published in their entirety until 1839, although Yates’s notes are said to have been published in 1821 as edited by John Lansing who, again, was also himself an attendee of the convention. Yates died in 1801, 20 years before Lansing shared them. As an aside - Lansing mysteriously disappeared on the evening of Dec 12, 1829 after heading out to mail a letter. He was presumed to have been murdered or drowned… No trace of his body was ever found.

Peculiar to me, is that the general public, who one would assume is the subject of reference with statements like: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution…”

… “The people” referenced above did not even have any access to these very important insights until after the last surviving member of the convention had died (which conveniently happens to be James Madison) …, some 47 years after the ratification thereof. Some historians suggest that this was due to their oath of secrecy. A rational person must ask themself, if that be true, why would they keep such things private until all members had perished? Reputation? Accountability? Madison’s editor speaks of notes being generally destroyed, lost and burned, thus leaving very few actual written accounts of what took place, apart from “small fragments and drawings.” You can then find within the notes of Yates, Lansing and Martin, where they describe how they were forbidden from carrying notes outside of the convention walls to even deliberate amongst themselves; or even pondering within their own minds as they thought through the merits of the days discussions/debates. Any serious person would naturally want to speak from a more informed perspective with each new day as the actual proceedings pressed on (pg’s – 4 & 32). It seems to me that it is quite an unreasonable demand to compel its members to form adequate arguments, for or against, a system of such significant importance, while simultaneously prohibiting them from even basic deliberation in order to form their opinions and thus provide adequate and meaningful points of consideration during the debate. One could reasonably argue that this [may] have been an intentional method of limiting the formation of popular dissent. This may also factor into the demand that members took an oath of secrecy upon arrival. Who made these demands? Why? Who has been memorialized as the great architect of the convention? Under what pretenses were delegates even sent to assemble in Philadelphia? Yates, Lansing and Martin provide some insights into many of these questions within their notes.

As I began to read what was furnished by Yates, Lansing and Martin… I recalled what the editor of Madison’s notes suggested in the opening of that collection. He praised Madison as having provided the most complete work available. He established for the readers, that Madison was the chief architect of the system and the individual who established the “blueprint” of the how the proceedings were to be conducted. Madison is said to have arrived to the convention 11 (or so) days early in order to prepare, etc.. Additionally, post-convention – Madison, along with Hamilton and Jay were the men behind the pens in what became known as the federalist papers (let us not forget the primary audience of the federalist papers were the inhabitants of New York where Hamilton was from… But so too, were Yates and Lansing… Who themselves are often speculated to have been the anonymous authors on the anti-federalist side within many of those arguments: Brutus?).

The editor of Madison’s notes also takes time to mention that the notes shared in 1821 by John Lansing, was proclaimed by Madison to be “crude and broken,” and “scraps.” Madison’s editor suggests that Yates’s notes “were colored by his own prejudices, which were strong against the leaders of the convention…” Yates, who had died 20 years prior was not alive to defend his own account of things. Any quick queries about Yates paints the picture of a man who was of the utmost integrity, restraint and passion for liberty. So passionate for liberty was Yates, that he is said to have “stormed out of the convention,” when it became clear that “the fix was in” and no further debate would change the outcome of the “majority” decision.

Within the notes, we read about a very small number of men who espoused the same legitimate concerns for loss of liberty as we find in the anti-federalist arguments. Similar to that which was given later by others, such as Patrick Henry in the days of VA ratifying convention; their concern was not bourn out of selfish ambition nor grandstanding… Every bit of what they spoke out against, was based on the merits of their desire to prevent a degradation of the liberties that they had only very recently achieved through the bloody revolution.

Although Madison and the editor of his notes made assertions about incomplete and/or out of context notes from Lansing; we have the benefit of looking at what has actually become of the warnings of Yates, Lansing, Martin and the anti-federalists! Some historians have even suggested Madison’s notes may have been amended by the editor, or even by Madison himself. Bear in mind that none of these dissenting contemporaries of Madison’s were alive after the death of Lansing in 1829, which afforded Madison more than 6 years to do so, if he in fact chose to make any suspected changes. Whether he did or did not make alterations has no bearing on the outcome of their respective rhetoric from both sides of the debate when weighed against the actual outcome of the experiment.

Remember also that Patrick Henry was selected as a VA delegate to the constitutional convention yet declined to attend. When asked why, he reportedly stated – “I smelt a rat.” Who was one of Patrick Henry’s VA contemporaries and co-delegates (had he chosen to attend)… James Madison. Why did Patrick Henry smell a rat? Which rat was he referring to?

Conspiracy theories aside – We know that Madison is said to have created the blueprint for the proceedings, was the chief architect and “father of the constitution.” We know that he was heavily influential in the federalist papers. Finally, we know that his own notes are exalted as the “most important manuscript of the debates and proceedings,” during the convention in Philadelphia… As well as the original intent of what was created.

To put it another way: Madison was able to ensure that his personal influence and oversight acted as bookends around the entire process, from beginning to end… As well as its (and his own) historical legacy. As previously stated – “History is always written by the winners.”

Thankfully, we can read what was preserved by Yates, Lansing and Martin – and discern for ourselves as to the accusations made against their motives and their thoughtful warnings. More than 230 years later, we are able to judge which historical argument was valid in its defense of safeguarding liberty. We are also able to piece together parts of the puzzle that have been mostly hidden from Americans via the educational system and folk lore that is managed by the heirs of the winning side (the central state).

Although a rational person ought to easily be able to consider all of these bits of information and conceive of numerous [potential] “conspiracies…” One needs to look no further than what has become of the so-called surety that was espoused on the part of the federalists. Or, that of their system of so-called “checks and balances.”

Why is any of this important?? Because virtually all areas of our lives are proclaimed to be legislated and ruled by others. They claim these things on the basis of the very effective propaganda that was used centuries ago, and to this day. They believe in the legitimacy of it, because they have been trained to accept a false description of liberty. What we are trained to believe, accept ,and even promote are actually the antithesis of liberty.

I will talk through these areas of revisionist history, with the ultimate goal of exposing statism for what it truly is.

Again... This is only the beginning!

🐸