"Peace Be With You"

Home Forum Free Book Downloads Contact Behold! Essays Court Cases Behold! Materials

Miscegenation or Interracial Marriage

Corruption of Blood - Part 1

Corruption of Blood - Part 2

Corruption of Blood - Analysis
  by Randy Geiszler

Communism in America: Do You Live Under Communist Rule in the U.S.S.A.   (USA)?

To Lose Our Sovereignty or The Dismantling of a Christian Nation

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Who are the Posterity?

PUBLIC DANGER DISGUISED AS PUBLIC SAFETY

FIRST ARTICLE IN AMENDMENT

The SECOND AMENDMENT

TRIUNE REPUBLIC

BABY KILLERS!

Church & State

COMMUNISM MUST DESTROY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

County Governments Abolished in Connecticut (1998)

News from Massachusetts: County Government Ends

On Civil Rights & The Freedman's Bureau

NOTARY PUBLIC

WHERE HAS THE REPUBLIC GONE?!?

From the Floor of Congress:
ON CIVIL RIGHTS & THE FREEDMAN'S BUREAU

Behold! Newsletter - January, 1997

Prepared by Gerald A. Koellermeier, Sr.

with Comments by Randy L. Geiszler

Copyright: January, 1997

Debates before the 39th Congress, 1st. Session, (1866). As reported in The Reconstruction Amendments' Debates, 1974, 2nd Ed., pp. 132- 136.

"Mr. DAVIS. I will say a word or two in reference to what the Senator from Illinois has said. I assumed that the gentleman's proposition of amendment could not be entertained. First, I denied the proposition which he made in his speech of the day before yesterday that a negro was a citizen. I assumed the other proposition that whether a negro was a citizen or not, he was not a foreigner; and not being a foreigner he cannot be naturalized by any act of Congress, special or general; that nobody but a foreigner can be naturalized."

Comment: This was the great dilemma. A Negro being domestically born was not a foreigner, yet, generally he was also not considered a Citizen under our laws. Being domestically born and not being white, Congress could not provided a rule for his naturalization. The power was never given to Congress. The meaning of naturalization is to change place of birth by operation of law. This is clear from the definition of naturalization. In addition, the power to set a rule of naturalization does not include the power to change race by operation of law.

"NATURALIZATION The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America." 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 204, 8th Ed. (1859), title "Naturalization."

Comment: This definition goes on to recite the several naturalization acts of Congress, which according to the rule of law, without exception, required one to be an alien and to be white to become a Citizen. Although born in one of the Several united States, being born of Negro descent, one was not a Citizen and Congress' power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" could not help him.

The debate goes on with MR. DAVIS speaking:

"Now, by way of repelling the first position, the honorable Senator introduces a decision of one of the North Carolina courts that a negro was a citizen in North Carolina. When was he made a citizen in North Carolina if he was a citizen there? It was before the Constitution was formed. He had the right to vote in having the right to vote in North Carolina, had gone over to Virginia, or South Carolina, or Georgia, he would have been a citizen there and entitled to the privileges of citizenship? He might have claimed them, but they never would have been accorded to him."

"The mere right to vote does not amount to citizenship. Citizenship, under the Constitution, is something different from what it was before the Constitution was formed. Before the Constitution was formed every State made its own citizens; every State coined its own money. Since the formation of the Constitution, there is but one power to coin money, there is but one power to make citizens, and that is the Government of the United States. The State of Illinois admitted unnaturalized foreigners who had been resident in that State six months to vote. Did the fact that Illinois permitted an unnaturalized foreigner who had been resident there six months to take part in her government make him a citizen of the United States? Not at all."

"My position is that this is a white man's Government. It was made so at the beginning. The charters that were granted by the different sovereigns of England to the various colonies were granted to white men and included nobody but white men. They did not include Indians. They did not include negroes. When the troubles with the mother country commenced in 1764, and culminated in revolution and a Declaration of Independence in 1776, all of that protracted and important transaction was by white men, and by white men alone. The negro had nothing to do with it, no more than the Indian; he was no party to it. It was not for his grievances that that struggle was made; it was not to reform his wrongs that that bloodily war was waged; it was not to established a Government in which he was to be a party or a power that the Declaration of Independence was enunciated to the world and the old Articles of Confederation formed; it was not to make him a party to our present Government that the Constitution was formed. He was no party in the Convention; he was not represented in the Convention which framed the present Constitution. It is a white man's Government. I say that the negro is not a citizen. He may be made a citizen by power, but it will be in disregard, I think, of principle. I deny that this is a Government of amalgamation."

Comment: These comments were not lightly made and historical evidence supports MR. DAVIS' contentions. The family is the primary natural unit of society. "Race" (more properly "Nation") is a term used to describe natural family membership (common origin, ancestry and genealogy), unless one is a Darwin evolutionist who follows the pagan belief of the amalgamated "whole human family." No one has the right to force their unnatural adoption into a family to which they do not belong, and an unnaturally adopted son would always be a questionable heir. The American governments were founded upon the natural law family which brought with it a common heritage, common ancestry, common sentiments and customs, a common faith and, of most importance, common affection and allegiance that comes as a natural and expected trait of family relations.

MR. DAVIS continues.

"Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senator will permit me to explain that I did not say it excluded the black man. I say it ignored the black man; it paid no attention to him; it was made by a different race of beings; it did not comprehend him; he had nothing to do with it any more than the Indian of the forest had, any more than the Chinaman in California had in the formation of the constitution of that State." Senate Page 528.

"Mr. Hogan: And these remarks apply to the twin question of African enfranchisement. Who, of all the members of this House, was elected on this issue? And yet this extraneous question absorbs all the time of the House. No sooner is one phase of this African question disposed of than another takes it place. Suffrage in this District is no sooner passed, after weeks of argument, than suffrage in the States is to be procured for the African by constitutional amendment, and as soon as we get through with this the African comes up again in the shape of a measure - which has already passed the Senate - to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. Thus we go, and all the anomalies of these separate measures claim our notice, but do not succinctly attract attention."

Comment: And must be noted: the suppose Citizenship accorded by the Fourteenth Amendment and the supposed enfranchisement of amalgamated people(s), outside the "one people" who established their independence and who established constitutional Republics as their form of government, has never been ratified by that "one people" or their heirs, in conventions of the several States. The comment of Mr. Hogan is correct. Congress was not elected or empowered by the Constitution to deal with the question and "the people" had no inclination to do so. This so called citizenship and enfranchisement was conceived in Congress and still born in the state legislatures, neither of which bodies had any power whatsoever to determine the composition of the "sovereign body" of Citizens from which their power and very existence as a law making body was derived.

MR. HOGAN goes on:

"For thirty years it has been steadily proclaimed that African slavery had reduced the enslaved to the very lowest grade of being. The enslavement of his body had, by consequence, almost obliterated his intellect. He could scarcely be called a man. That he might be rescued, he must be freed. He is freed. Presto, change! As soon as the chains fall he is no longer the brutalized being over whom, for thirty years, we have made the land to mourn; he is an American citizen, fully qualified and prepared to take upon himself the responsibilities of an elector, and qualified for all these important duties. Wonderful!"

"But yet more passing strange, another turn of the cards, and this noble African, of whom we heard so many culogiums a few days ago, comes now before us as the "mere child," the "ward of the nation," who is to be followed by a guardian, in the shape of a high military officer, at heavy pay, to see that this now helpless being is secured in his contracts for labor and not defrauded out of his earnings. But yesterday his qualifications for a voter, and, indeed, his evident superiority to the "ignorant foreigner who did not understand our language," were eloquently proclaimed. A day before he by his prowess, his valor, his zeal in our behalf, had saved us a nation. He rescued us from fierce rebels, and baring his noble breast, received in lieu of the deadly shaft, thus delivering our poor white race from overthrow. But now again he is placed under the watchful care of a new organization in the Government for his special benefit, "a Freedman's Bureau," solely to look after him, help him to get employment, help him say how much a month he should work for, how he shall employ his time, and where he shall and where he shall not go; but over and above all this, he is to be educated, sent to school; he is to be fed by the public if he does not choose to work for his living; he is to get clothing from the overflowing Treasury of the nation; Government must find him a house and pay for a doctor when he is sick; and all this because he is a freedman of African descent. White soldiers, disabled in the service of the Union, unable to work, are left to beg upon the streets. What a fault for them to have been born white! Had they been colored Government would have had an agent to look after them." House Page App. 64.

Comment: This Freedman's Bureau was complained of by some members of Congress because it imposed a military (martial law) authority not only in the so-called disloyal Confederate States but also in the so-called loyal States of the Union. Through this agency, military power was imposed in a civil manner in the several States, falling within the definition of "martial rule" set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 18 L. Ed. 281, 302. The arguments made by Mr. Hogan above make it clear that the Freedman's Bureau was the first federal welfare agency formed by Congress. It apparently accomplished everything for Negroes that the Social Security welfare state now provides for all who join and it provided it backed up by military force. Meanwhile, those who were protected by the Freedman's Bureau and, apparently, Social Security, today, are treated as wards of the State. A ward has no power of attorney because his guardian exercises it. In so many words Mr. Hogan makes it clear that Congress by claiming authority to protect Negroes claimed superiority (mastery) over them. As slaves they were wards of their masters. Where is the change in condition? Clearly, they were not made free by the Civil War or the Civil War Amendments, they were simply subjugated to the power of Congress, a new master.

Mr. Dawson states his views:

"Mr. Dawson: It matters not that this Government was made by and for the white race; that the States reserved the right of making their local laws; and that the Union could not otherwise have been formed. It matters not that a million of lives have been sacrificed in the effort to reduce their pernicious theories to practice. Still they falter not in the contest; still they hug to their bosoms the phantom of negro equality; still they claim for one section the right to control the local affairs of others. They hold that the white and black race are equal. This they maintain involves and demands social equality; that negroes should be received on an equality in white families, should be admitted to the same tables at hotels, should be permitted to occupy the same seats in railroad cars and the same pews in churches; that they should be allowed to hold offices; to sit on juries, to vote, to be eligible to seats in the States and national Legislatures, and to be judges, or to make and expound laws for the government of white men. Their children are to attend the same schools with white children, and to sit side by side with them. Following close upon this will, of course, be marriages between the races, when, according to these philanthropic theorists, the prejudices of caste will at length overcome, and the negro, with the privilege of free miscegenation accorded him, will be in the enjoyment of his true status."

"To future generations it will be a marvel in the history of our times, that a party whose tenets were such wild ravings and frightful dreams as these should be permitted, in their support, to urge the country into the hugest and most destructive of civil wars, should, when war was inaugurated, be permitted to shape its policy in furtherance of their peculiar ends. For the full realization of their plans, they are ready to sacrifice not only our priceless system of government, but even our social superiority itself."

"We have to remember, on the other hand, that negro equality does not exist in nature. The African is without a history. He has never shown himself capable of self-government." House Page 541.

"But the negro is to this day, in Africa, a savage and a cannibal."

"It is impossible that two distinct races should exist harmoniously in the same country, on the same footing of equality by the law. The result must be a disgusting and deteriorating admixture of races, such as is presented in the Spanish States of America by the crossing of the Castilian with the Aztec and the negro. The prejudice of color is one of those facts implanted by Providence for wise purposes. Among others it is doubtless for the purpose of preserving a race homogeneous, which is the source of its true strength and permanent improvement. Physiologists instruct us that a race may be improved by the union of valuable qualities among the same race or others of similar characteristics, but not by the indiscriminate amalgamation of superior with greatly inferior races. It is the homogeneous races which have controlled the world. The Jew, though without a country and everywhere the object of prejudice, yet maintains his physical and mental excellence even to the present day; and it is because he intermarries chiefly with his own race. The Anglo-Saxon, the dominant and most advanced in civilization upon the globe, owes its superiority to its homogeneity or alliance with others of kindred excellence."

"We have, then, to insist upon it that this Government was made for the white race. It is our mission to maintain it. Negro suffrage and equality are incompatible with that mission. We must make our own laws and shape our own destiny. Negro suffrage will, in its tendency, force down the Anglo-Saxon to the negro level, and result inevitably in amalgamation and deterioration of our race. The proud spirit of our people will revolt at such certain degradation, while American women, the models of beauty and superiority, will indignantly execrate the men who advise and dictate the policy." House Page 542.

Comment: Notice the basis of Mr. Dawson's arguments: "family" and the destruction of it by unnatural admixture. And, his prophecy is fulfilled today in Amerika (sic).

The arguments continue:

"Mr. DOOLITTLE. Indians not taxed were excluded because they were not regarded as a portion of the population of the United States. They are subject to the tribes to which they belong, and those tribes are always spoken of in the Constitution as if they were independent nations, to some extent, existing in our midst but not constituting a part of our population, and with whom we make treaties." Senate Page 571.

"Mr. TRUMBULL. Then it was suggested that we should make citizens of all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign Power or tribal authority. The objection to that was, that there were Indians not subject to tribal authority who yet were wild and untamed in their habits, who had by some means or other become separated from their tribes and were not under the laws of any civilized community, and of whom the authorities of the United States took no jurisdiction. The Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS] told us that there were in his State Indians who had been placed upon reservations under charge of Indian superintendents who had been separated from their tribes and were not under any tribal authority, but they were there under the regulations of treaties which had been made with them, and were supplied and looked after by our Indian agents the same as other Indians who were perfectly wild, not submitting at all to the usages of civilized life, and it could not be intended to make that class of persons citizens."

"Then it was proposed to adopt the amendment as it now stands, that all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, shall be citizens. What does that phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" mean? The Senator from Missouri understands it to be a property qualification to become a citizen. Not at all. It is a constitutional term used by the men who made the Constitution itself to designate, what? To designate a class of persons who were not a part of our population. That is what it means. They are not counted in the census. They are not regarded as a part of our people. The term "Indians not taxed" means Indians not counted in our enumeration of the people of the United States."

"Mr. JOHNSON. Considered virtually as foreigners."

"Mr. TRUMBULL. Considered virtually as foreigners, as a description of persons connected with those tribes with whom we make treaties. That is what the phrase means. Whenever they are separated from those tribes, and come within the jurisdiction of the United States so as to be counted, they are citizens of the United States. It is not intended as a property qualification. That is not the meaning of it. The Senator wants to know why, if an Indian cannot be a citizen without being taxed, should a white man or a negro be a citizen without being taxed. If the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen; we do not propose that he should be; and that is all that the words "Indians not taxed," in that connection, mean."

"Mr. HENDERSON. "Not taxed" by whom? By Federal authority or by State authority?" Senate Page 572.

"Mr. TRUMBULL. By anybody. The term here is meant to embrace those persons who yet belong to the Indian tribes, foreign Government. "Indians not taxed" is a term used to designate those Indians yet belonging to a foreign Government, and not counted as a part of our people." Senate Page 572.

Comment: The above comments display the means by which the members of indigenous Indian tribes would individually give up their sovereignty to govern themselves as a Nation. Although the Indian had a different status that a white citizen, being a member of a separate "Nation" and sovereignty, he would subjugate himself in the same way and loose or waive similar rights as the white State Citizen by engaging the Social Security Act. By applying for a Social Security Number, the Indian would provide for ask for imposition of the income taxes imposed by the act. He would become an Indian "taxed." The Indian would then be reduced to the so-called citizenship accorded by the Fourteenth Amendment and loose his membership in a tribal sovereign body and Congress could claim authority deal with him by statute instead of treaty. Yet, as the former slaves, the Indian could not claim a natural legal character possessed by white Citizens or a natural affinity with them that no statute or amendment can provide.

Going back to the Floor of Congress:

"Mr. HENDERSON. Will the Senator permit me to ask him, if citizenship be conferred upon the Indian, what right will be conferred that he objects to? The Indian, like the negro, was born upon our soil, and I say let him be declared a citizen also, unless some right will be thereby conferred upon him that will conflict with the general interests of the States. Will the Senator tell me what interest will be conflicted with, what power of the State to take care of the Indians will be denied by this legislation?"

"Mr. Williams: Now, sir, in the State of Oregon it has been found necessary to pass laws regulating the intercourse between the Indians and white persons. The Indians are put under certain disabilities, and it is supposed that those disabilities are necessary in order to protect the peace and safety of the community. As an illustration, it is made an indictable offense in the State of Oregon for any white man to sell arms or ammunition to any Indians. Suppose these Indians have equal rights with white men in that State. Then if a man is indicted for selling arms and ammunition to an Indian, may he not defend that prosecution successfully upon the ground that Congress has declared that an Indian is a citizen; and has the same right to buy and hold any kind of property that a white man of the State has? In that way, the white people of the State would be deprived of the power of protecting themselves, or of enacting such laws as they might deem necessary for their own protection."

"I might refer to another law in reference to the sales of intoxicating liquors in the State to the Indians. A white man has the legal right in the State of Oregon to buy a gallon or barrel of whiskey; but the law forbids white men selling whiskey to Indians, because it endangers the peace and safety of the community. But if Congress declares that Indians in the State of Oregon shall have the same right to buy and hold all kinds of property that the white men have, then, it seems to me, if a man is indicted in that State for selling liquor to Indians, by which he puts the lives of the white people in peril, he may defend himself upon the grounds that Congress has declared that an Indian has as much right to buy, sell and use that kind of property as a white man has."

"Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to ask the Senator if the law of Oregon now does not forbid the selling of intoxicating liquors to minors under twenty-one years of age, under a penalty?"

"Mr. WILLIAMS. I think not. There is no such law in that State to my knowledge."

"Mr. HENDERSON. It is the law in my State, and perhaps in almost every State in the Union, and the power to pass such law has never been denied to the States."

"Mr. WILLIAMS. Minors, sons of white men, are not savage Indians. Liquor may perhaps be sold with safety to the sons of white men, while to sell a quart of liquor to an Indian may imperil the lives of the people in a whole neighborhood; but there is no such law as that in the State of Oregon." Senate Page 573.

"Mr. HENDERSON. One word in reply. It used to be supposed that this Government was made exclusively for the white man, and it was so decided. We are deciding to-day that it was made for the white man and the black man." Senate Page 574.

Comment: The question still remains: By what authority did Congress presume to make this decision, contrary to the historical will of "the People" who made Congress an institution in the first place. Congress was given no such authority. It was not Congress' decision to make.

Going back to the floor of Congress:

"Mr.Donnelly: The one great error of our country has been that education was not from the very first made a matter of the State, and as essential to the citizen as liberty itself. Education means the intelligent exercise of liberty, and surely without this liberty is a calamity, since it means simply the unlimited right to err. Who can doubt that if a man is to govern himself he should have the means to know what is best for himself, what is injurious to himself, what agencies work against him and what for him? And the avenue to all of this is simply education. Suffrage without education is an edged tool in the hands of a child -- dangerous to others and destructive to himself." House Page 586.

"Slavery consists in a deprivation of natural rights. A man may be a slave for a term of years as fully as though he were held for life; he may be a slave when deprived of a portion of the wages of his labor as fully as if deprived of all; he may be held down by unjust laws to a degraded and defenseless condition as fully as though his wrist were manacled; he may be oppressed by a convocation of masters called a Legislature as fully as by a single master. In short, he who is not entirely free is necessarily a slave."

Comment: And what of present day America. Men are deprived of a portion of their wages under Social Security and the related income tax, and this is not for a term of years but from cradle to grave according to the founder of Social Security and the statutes. And this education, administered by the state, has not served to educate but to subjugate, by convincing people to enslave themselves. It is true, education is necessary to liberty. It is consequently true, if the government administer and controls education, government is in a position to take liberty away from unwary generations to come. Mr. Donnelly goes on:

"What has the South done for the black man since the close of the rebellion?"

"Lets us examine the black codes of the different States adopted since that time."

"The black code of Mississippi provides that a negro shall not own or hire lands in the State; that he shall not sue nor testify in court against a white man; ..... It is true the President has directed General Thomas to disregard this code; but the moment the military force is withdrawn from the State that order will be of no effort." House Pages 588 & 589.

"The black code of Virginia provides that any man who will not work for "the common wages given to other laborers" shall be deemed a vagrant; ..."

"It is true General Terry has declared that the order shall not be enforced; but of what avail will this be when the military are withdrawn and Virginia is reconstructed?"

"... General Schurz says, in his admirable report: "The emancipation of the slaves is submitted to only in so far as chattel slavery in the old form could not be kept up. But although the freedman is no longer considered the property of the individual master, he is considered the slave of society; and all independent State legislation will show the tendency to make him such. The ordinances abolishing slavery, passed by the conventions under the pressure of circumstances, will not be looked upon as barring the establishment of a new form of servitude." House Page 589.

Comment: And so it is today. The military force necessary to enforce statutes which invade and subvert the sovereignty of the several States continues to be imposed under the guise of civil authority and the central government dictates to the several States without constitutional authority of law. This is not a question of black codes, it is a question of who has the right to govern local matters within the several States. Contrary to the clear intent of the Constitution for the United States [See the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment] Congress has declared, through the imposition of military force, that they will govern local matters within the several States, without justification of law but justified only, like other subtle tyrants, by some grand utopian end. How else could Congress dictate such a minute local matters as the speed we drive our cars or what flag will fly over the Capital of the State of Georgia?

Going back to the floor of Congress:

"Mr. Davis: It attempts to confer, by the first section, upon all the inhabitants of the United States, of every race and color, wheresoever resident in them, the right to make and enforce contracts; to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property; and the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property; and it exempts them from all punishment, pains, and penalties except such as are common and uniform to all the people. If that is not centralizing with a vengeance and by wholesale, I do not know what is. Here the honorable Senator in one short bill breaks down all the domestic systems of law that prevail in all the States, so far not only as the negro, but as any man without regard to color is concerned, and he breaks down all the penal laws that inflict punishment or penalty upon all the people of the States except so far as those laws shall be entirely uniform in their application. To the extent that there is any variance in those laws, this short bill breaks them down. To the extent that a negro is by them subject to a severer punishment than a white man, this short bill repeals all the penal laws of the States. In relation to the citizens of a State, to their rights, privileges, and immunities, as they are to be claimed within that State now and for ever, it proposes to do exactly what all these authorities of Congress cannot do, because they say in the most distinct terms that the citizens of each State, so far as their rights are limited by the boundary of that State, so far as their property and contracts are limited to that State, so far as penalties and punishments are limited to acts done within that State, are exclusively the subjects of State legislation, and Congress has no power whatever to legislate in relation to them."

"I have before me the law of the Senator's own State, which makes it a highly penal offense for any officer who is authorized to issue a marriage license to issue a license for the marriage of a white person and a negro. I need not read the law. It makes it a highly penal offense for any preacher of the gospel to solemnize such a marriage. What does the gentleman's bill do? If the clerk issues such a license and the license is consummated by a preacher marrying the negro with the white person, the negro has incurred a penalty by the laws of Illinois for which he may be prosecuted. Suppose the negro is indicted for this offense, and he is tried by a jury and convicted, and the judge sentences him to the penalty denounced by the law, what application, then, has the honorable Senator's bill? All the parties who were engaged in bringing this negro to a punishment to which a white person who had committed the same act would not be -- the grand jury, the petit jury, the judge, and the officer of the law who is about to carry the judgment of the court into execution, would all, according to the honorable Senator's bill, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and each of them would be subject to a fine of not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, one or both, at the discretion of the court. Does the honorable Senator think such a law would be constitutional and valid in relation to parties who had been born in the State of Illinois, and who were living there?"

"Let me put the case from my own State, which I mentioned when the other bill was pending. By the law of my own State a negro who commits a rape upon a white woman is subject to death, as he ought to be; and he ought to die, and I hope he always will die for any such offense. When that offense is committed by a white man, it is punished by confinement in the penitentiary for a term of years. What does the Senator's bill say? That any man or any court or any officer of the law who presumes to inflict upon a negro a different punishment than that to which a white man is subject for the same act, shall himself be regraded as an offender against the law, liable to pay a penalty of $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or both, at the discretion of the court. Does the honorable Senator mean to assume the position that the State of Kentucky has not the right to punish a negro who has committed that enormous offense by death, when it punishes a white man who commits it by a different mode and different degree of punishment? Does he say that the judges and officers who are sworn to uphold the constitution of the State of Kentucky, and to enforce her laws, by carrying this law into operation can be guilty of a high misdemeanor against the Government of the United States that shall subject them to the pains and penalties of his bill? Sir, it is preposterous, it is absurd and unsound to the last degree. The Congress of the United States have no right to take jurisdiction over such a case or the parties to such a transaction. They have no right to declare and to denounce such punishment against the State courts and State officers for thus executing the constitutions and penal laws of the States. The result would be to utterly subvert our Government; it would be wholly incompatible with its principles, with its provisions or with its spirit. It would leave the General Government no longer a limited Government of delegated authority, with no powers except those expressly or by necessary implication given to it by the Constitution. It would produce a perfect and despotic central consolidated Government. All the State governments and State constitutions would be brought in ruins prostate to the feet of the oligarchy of Congress -- ..." Senate Page 598.

"The fourth section requires the United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, to institute both penal proceedings and civil suits, in the names of persons who may be injured by any violations of the letter of this act, at the cost of the United States, and authorizes the United States courts to appoint commissioners without limit in point of number, to enforce this act. What is the effect of that? This is an act for the benefit of the free negro, not the white man. If there had been no free negro, this act never would have been heard of. What does it provide? If, according to the letter of this unconstitutional, void, and iniquitous act, a free negro's rights are infringed, the attorneys and marshals of the United States are required to institute both civil and penal proceedings for the benefit of the negro, to bring a criminal prosecution on behalf of the United States, and also a suit in the name of the negro, against the white officers who infringe his rights under this act, and these suits, civil and penal, are to be prosecuted for the benefit of the negro at the cost of the Treasury of the United States. Sir, when was the white man so favored by congressional legislation? When did the learned chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary introduce a bill that, where the rights of a white man were impugned or violated, it should be the duty of the attorneys and the marshals and the deputy marshals of the United States both to prosecute penally and to sue civilly in the name of the negro for his violated rights, and to sue at the cost of the Treasury of the United States? It is a most diabolical feature. When, sir, was such partiality ever shown for the white man, the sovereign, citizen, and lord of this land--him who made the Government, who won its independence, who established, as he thought, the deep and firm foundations of a free Government in a written Constitution, and whose mission it is to uphold and to defend that Government for himself and for his latest posterity? When was such partial, unjust, and iniquitous legislation devised for the white man who achieved all this good for his country and for the world? Never, never. But the negro and his insane friends bring up now for the first time such monstrous legislation."

"These military gentlemen think they have a right to command and control everywhere. They do it. They think they have a right to do it here, and we are sheep in the hands of our shearers. We are dumb."

"Mr. President, I do not know how soon, for my action on the present occasion, I shall be compelled to silence by the military power of my country, by the men who ought to be subordinate to the civil power. When the Father of his Country surrendered his military commission, his proudest and most glorious boast was that he had always kept the military subordinate to the civil power. Times have changed. The military power is now rampant and triumphant, and all we have to do is to bow our heads. But I live in hope that a better day is coming, when the proudest military man in the land, with all his bloody laurels, will find that he is but an instrument in the hands of the law, and that he has to yield the same submission to the law that the humblest citizen of the land does." Senate Page 599.

Comment: It is now over one hundred years later and armed bands of men, numbering in the hundreds of thousands with titles and hierarchy of Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants and troopers, roam the streets looking to subject members of the sovereign body, State Citizens, under their paramilitary force. They disguise themselves as the civil "police" but, like the military men mentioned above, they believe they have the right to impose their military force (the power of the weapons they use) and the right to command and control everywhere. Through the disguise worn by these military forces, the line between civil government and military force has become confused. These military forces clearly refuse to subject themselves to the civil authority by the very arrogance of the act of claiming to be the civil authority. Things have not changed since these statements were made on the floor of Congress and it remains that the military power is now rampant and triumphant; all we have to do is to bow our heads and say, "Yes, master." And so the Judges, lawyers, legislatures, educators and the whole embodiment of our ruined institutions would have us believe "all we have to do is to bow our heads." Force is not law, it is martial law and only tyrants use it to govern.

See also, Corruption of Blood - Part 1

See also, Corruption of Blood - Part 2

See also, Corruption - Analysis by Randy Geiszler

See also, Miscegenation of Interracial Marriage

Reprints of this article and other articles of Behold! Newsletter are available from Jerry.