In that book it is reported how Andrew Jackson was in the same league as all the so called "Federalists" (Monarchists/Nationalists/Consolidated Government) as Jackson took steps to begin The Civil War on at least one occasion, as States were in the process of seceding from the union over inequitable, and arguably unconstitutional, taxation.
The People running the States were warned before The Constitution was signed, but the "Federalists" had more POWER over mass media at the time, and they published a pack of lies (campaign promises to be broken) with the so called Federalist Papers, which sounded benign, or even nice, to The People falling for that false front, false advertizement campaign.
"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information?"
It isn't that complicated. The criminals, frauds, wanted a Monopoly Bank of their choosing. They say that Mob Rule is bad, as they play the mob with their false rules, those so called Federalist Papers. And the representatives speak out, warn everyone, hey, look what they are doing, they don't want to allow the States to pay, or not pay, Union Dues. That makes it hard to collect Union Dues.
Where is my conscripted Army of Slaves that I need for collecting Union Dues from States that refuse to pay?
The so called Federalists didn't wait for The Civil War.
All nice and official like:
They started collecting National Debt in 1794.
The Civil War (A battle between two Despotic Nation States) cleared up any residual questions concerning who was the ONE boss.
That is all official too:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Andrew Jackson wanted absolute control too, no "help" from an English Banker, but seriously the Spirit of Liberty ended with Washington's conscripted Army invading Pennsylvania.
I can grab relevant quotes on Jackson from my copy of The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions if you care to read them.
Note: Madison confessed his error in helping the so called Federalists as they created National Debt through their abomination they call The Constitution. What would The Constitution, so called, be without The Bill of Rights?
The Nationalists/Monarchs/Despots/Slave Masters/Legal Criminals hid behind a False Front, False Flag, they called Federalist, and that was a joke, really funny, since the actual Federalists were given the name Anti-Federalists by the Nationalists.
Does that sound at all familiar?
Hi, I'm a conservative.
Really, so what does that mean, you tax everyone as much as you can so as to build up an army of aggression for profit and you spend all that tax money on any war that can turn a fast buck?
Hi, I'm a liberal.
I think the accurate word is criminal, and they give themselves licenses to perpetrate the crimes they perpetrate while they also give themselves the license to punish, crush, and destroy anyone who dares to compete in any way, good or bad.
Welcome to Earth?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul