The Fallacies of the Founding Fathers
Part Duh
The Federal Constitution

 

“…the constitution [is] a chastity belt whose key is always within the wearer’s reach.”
--Anthony DeJasay

Most Americans were told in Pub-Ed that America came into being as a nation with the Federal Constitution of 1787. Today, many are ejaculating their consternation over the lawlessness of both the people and the governments—those People who violate the laws against destruction of property and human Rights, and the impotence of those charged with sustaining and executing those laws.

The truth of the matter is America did not come into being with the passage of that Constitution—WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULACE did not want, and sought to obstruct its passage. It was the wealthy merchants, bankers, and land holders of the day, just as in our own time, and every instance in between them, that forced the farcical document which created the hierarchical government upon the American people. Those common American people who overwhelmingly immigrated to these shores to escape the pervasive domination of government in their native lands. They came as indentured servants, as paupers, as convicts and castaways, as dreamers of a Frontier where they could be left alone to pursue their notion of happiness.

Did America come into being with the Federal Constitution?
The Articles of Confederation?
The founding of Jamestown?
The Mayflower compact?
The rapacity and pillaging of Christopher Columbus?

What did the French mean by the Statue of Liberty, and the later added proem, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” And the exiles, the revolutionaries, the mercantilists, the ideological misfits, the oppressed poor and refugees, and above them all, the bankers and businessmen.

What made America?

Exactly what we were told in grammar school, but paid not the slightest attention to:

“Wherever I went in Europe I was struck by the persistence of the old original idea that America, and especially the United States, has no reason for existence except as a milch cow for Europe. People there were apparently born with this idea, as they might have been in the days of Columbus and Balboa. I observed it not only in the higher walks of society, but also in the lower. I observed also that Americans do not quite understand this persuasion, which is why I speak of it here. As far as I could see, there was no meanness about it, no spirit of grafting or sponging, or of bilking a rich and easy-going neighbour. It seemed rather to be the simple, natural expression of a sort of proprietary instinct. The general harmony and fitness of things required that America's resources should at all times be at the disposal of Europe for Europe's benefit. Especially it was imperative that when Europe got in any kind of scrape, America's plain duty was to take the brunt of it, and to stand by when the scrape was settled, and clean up the debris at American expense.” p251 Albert Nock, The Superfluous Man

America has always been seen as the land of riches first, then a land of opportunity, a place where anyone could come and acquire wealth without constraint, if by no other means than plunder. Whether it was the socialized plunder of the Mayflower compact, or chartered (gold and silver) business ventures like Jamestown, the speculation of the land companies in consequence of land-backed specie, or the mercantilists, traders, and bankers who conceived and executed the Constitution, the impetus undergirding Government has ever been the economic security of those at the top of the food chain.

What made America, and its subsequent union of States was not politics. The American colonies fought a war of insurrection, yes insurrection not a revolution, BEFORE they came together politically. The word revolution does not descend from revolt, but revolve, and what those thirteen States did in common defense was not a return to fundamentals, but a revolt against the British Parliamentarian oppression.

America up to that time was an amalgamation of English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French, Spanish, German, and Natives. All of them were competing for land, resources, a piece of that milch cow that the world to this day has assumed the Northern western hemisphere to be. Relative peace prevailed among the Colonies, though there were constant provocations among the competing ethnic interests. Prosperity was incrementally abounding, until a certain young, inexperienced and foolish man changed all that. Reflecting on this transition from prosperity to poverty, and peace to conflict, Benjamin Franklin declared:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”

“The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”

That insurrectionary war was never about “Liberty”, but about Money. How did this poverty come about? In every historical case, it begins with the debauchment of money. Whether it is the debasing of coin by changing its content, size, and thus its reference standard, or the introduction of paper as currency, it always begins with a frantic escalation in prosperity and then long periods of poverty as its value dissipates. That well-meaning but foolish young man who triggered the conflict with England was Benjamin Franklin. The consequences of this singular act put in motion the creation of the Federal Constitution and all the political nightmare that has spread like a hydra across the world over the last three centuries.

A listing of significant historical events gives outline and scope to the process:

1729 Benjamin Franklin, age 23, calls for Colonial paper money rather than gold and silver coin as specie. The specie is backed by real estate, an artifice of wealth carried forward from the Normans, precipitating the land rush in Colonial times.

1751 Franklin, age 45, informs British bankers of their prosperity due to Colonial Scrip (paper money); Britain’s Parliament then requires economic exchange by gold and silver coin of the Colonies; financial collapse and poverty ensue.

1752 George Washington begins hoarding “unclaimed” territory as public land surveyor. He is the motive force behind the Mississippi and Potomac companies.

1754 George Washington assassinates the French governor’s emissary, precipitating the French and Indian war. George, as land surveyor coveted the land he surveyed, inhabited then by the French and Natives.

1765 The British Stamp Act was enacted to finance the French and Indian war, precipitated by Lt. George Washington in 1754. Military conflict begins with Britain.

Apr 1775 Battles of Lexington and Concord militias against British troops.

Jun 1775 Continental Army formed. Fighting without pay and adequate resources and leadership, the demoralized army disbands.

Mar 1776 Washington’s only “successful” military maneuver: the British are already vacating Boston harbor upon his arrival.

Jul 1776 Unanimous Declaration of Independence by States.

Feb 1778 Ambassador Franklin (58) signs treaties of assistance (money and troops) with France.

Jul 1778 Confederacy of United States formed in perpetuity; alteration in any form subject to Congress and State legislatures; no provision or procedure made for dissolution of the new Confederacy.

Jan 1779 The British banking system floods the Colonies with counterfeit notes, deflating American currency, bankrupting many businesses.

Sep 1781 Majority ratification of the Confederacy.

Sep 1783 Official conclusion of war and American Independence.

Sep 1786 Petition of commissioners to redress Confederacy defects; Convention held trashing the Articles of Confederation without Congressional oversight, substituting the Federal Constitution. The issue of amending the Articles is repeatedly tabled and ignored in the secret Convention proceedings.

Sep 1787 The Federal Constitution signed against considerable opposition, and submitted to States for ratification. The document conceived, composed and pressed into law by bankers, merchants, landed pseudo-aristocrats as delegates, constrained suffrage among themselves as officers and electorate.

May 1788 Majority of States via sectional ratification of the Federal Constitution.

Feb 1789 Electoral college unanimously appoints George Washington president before N.C. and R.I. needed to compose a majority to ratify the Constitution.

Sep 1789 Federal Congress composes and adopts the Bill of Rights amendments.

When Benjamin convinced the colonies to switch to paper backed by possession of land instead of universally accepted precious metals, it precipitated the land rush fomented by the formation of land companies, and the westward expulsion of the American Natives.

The Articles of Confederation intended for perpetuity was abandoned without State legislature consent; the Constitution was adopted instead by a bare majority of popular electoral vote (NOT all the People); the Bill of Rights was composed and executed by the Federal Congress, which was a scarecrow beginning with Washington’s administration. Despite the fact that the fledgling American States had conducted a war of insurrection, seceding from the monarchial government of Great Britain (which conflict effectively continued for nearly 40 more years), the Convention delegates granted power to their new Federal government, the power to put down all insurrections (Section 8). Do as we say, not as we did.

Of those delegates appointed by the Continental Congress to deliberate revision of the Articles, we find that most had a financial conflict of interest:

“The convention was made up wholly of men representing the economic interests of the first division. The great majority of them, possibly as many as four-fifths, were public creditors; one-third were land-speculators; some were money-lenders; one-fifth were industrialists, traders, shippers; and many of them were lawyers. They planned and executed a coup d'état, simply tossing the Articles of Confederation into the waste-basket, and drafting a constitution de novo, with the audacious provision that it should go into effect when ratified by nine units instead of by all thirteen. Moreover, with like audacity, they provided that the document should not be submitted either to the Congress or to the local legislatures, but that it should go direct to a popular vote!” p77 “More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds. Probably sixty per cent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.” p85 Our Enemy, the State

No sooner than George was formally installed as the President of the Federal Republic (the United States of America had eight presidents under the Articles) than this new government proceeded to do again what had precipitated Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts just prior to the secret Constitutional Convention. They implemented the very excise taxes that Parliament had done to pay for the unnecessary French and Indian war, and had incensed the inhabitants of Massachusetts and Worcester. George called for a militia amounting to 13,000 troops from the surrounding states, and went out at the lead to apprehend, incarcerate, and punish the objectors. Many thought they should be executed. This was not the first time he had put down an insurrection with force. He did the same thing among his volunteer troops when they objected to the Congressional deference in paying the Hessian mercenaries exclusive to their own remuneration. George put down the rebellion by forcing the troops to execute the leaders of his volunteer militia. This over-reach via taxation became the root cause of the War of Secession in 1861, commonly misnomered in Pub Ed as the American “Civil” War.

This eventuality was foreseen among many inhabitants during the Constitutional ratification period, and it was prophesied:

“In like manner [as Lycurgus] the proposed constitution holds out a prospect of being subject to be changed if it be found necessary or convenient to change it; but the conditions upon which an alteration can take place, are such as in all probability will never exist. The consequence will be that when the constitution is once established it never can be altered or amended without some violent convulsion or civil war.” –An Old Whig, Anti-Federalist Papers #49

That condition has repeatedly surfaced in American history, and is at present that which is tearing apart the D.C. Swamp, with its attendant division of the American people. The latest convulsion is the contrivance of a medical emergency over the release of a synthetic virus (Senator Paul’s documentation, and the patents examined by patent attorney Dave Martin), and the subsequent introduction of the mRNA treatment sold to the world as the solution, all the while acknowledging that it cannot prevent the spread of the virus. The perpetrators of this hoax in every country, but in particular the United States, are determined at all costs to have the populace submit to their tyrannical mandates. Simultaneously, they are ripping to shreds the Bill of Rights, by using an end run around the Constitution’s forbiddance of Congress (and the POTUS!) by implementing fascist control of the populace through megacorporations. This state of political affairs is no different than that which took place during the ratification. Patrick Henry, that scion of Liberty declared:

“The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names.

How like today, where no disputation, discussion, nor apprising of threats, both medical and political are being suppressed using the very same tactics, by the very same arbiters of monetaried interests. Nowhere in all my studies of the period encompassed from the insurrection war unto the ratification have I encountered a critique of the Constitution’s premise, save in Lysander Spooner’s philippic essays. It is long past time for all Americans to scrutinize that which they were induced to accept as the prophylactic against tyranny.

Patrick Henry demanded in an open letter to Americans:

“What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.” Anti-Federalist Papers #40

Patrick declared before the Virginia ratification convention on 6-4-88 that:

“The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception.”

Every inhabitant of this nation should know and understand the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention as recorded by James Madison. Therein we learn that the preamble phrase subsequently inserted, We, the People of the United States, was changed from the original We, the People of the States by the Committee of Style. That phrase, as declared by Congressional delegates was entirely paternalistic. Wherein did they as delegates conceive that they had the right and power to create a style of government that dissolved the Articles of Confederation? It is not true that all the People of the several States in the Union approved its adoption, nor were they aware of the Convention. The Delegates were distinctly aware during their deliberations that there would have been considerable opposition to those proceedings had word gotten out.

A constitution was largely outside the interests of most Colonials of the time:

“Even the most enlightened inhabitants of the interior of New Hampshire—and of the Berkshire Hills and Worcester County, Massachusetts, and of Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, and of the piedmont of lower Virginia and all of North Carolina and the South Carolina up-country—normally did not have contact with national authority from one year to the next, felt the existence of their state governments only through the militia muster and the annual visit of the taxgatherers, and encountered information, ideas, or people from the outside world only two or three times a year. To them it was as unreasonable to suppose that the thirteen states could be well governed by a single national government as it had been to suppose that the thirteen colonies could be well governed from London. Accordingly, for most people all the force of inertia was opposed to the Constitution, and it took something special to bring them to think otherwise.” p196-7 Forrest McDonald, E Pluribus Unum

Law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote their interpretation of that passage to mean “The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof.” But in quoting Patrick Henry’s Virginia address, they completely ignore Patrick’s question:

“What right had they to say, We, the people?… “The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.”

Some will rationalize that in presenting the document to the “People” for majority adoption by elected representatives, all the citizens then, and all the citizens now take this phrase to mean it includes them, not the “People” consisting of representatives in counties, States, or any other political body. This is only the beginning of the fundamental fallacies of the Federal Constitution. Such a form of representation, particularly argued by James Madison, violated the representative principle on the basis of conflict of interest. One cannot rightly say that your Congressman, Senator, POTUS, or even a Justice of the Peace can represent your will when they are not who you voted for. It is a conflict of interest on their part to claim to be representing you against your dissent, while also representing others who oppose your political will. Upon this conflict, and the traditional English practice of Power of Attorney lies all the refutations of attorney Lysander Spooner’s declaration the Federal Constitution is of no authority to anyone:

“The necessity for the consent of ‘the people’ is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of ‘the people of the United States’ would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, ‘We, the people,’ is, that the instrument offered membership to all ‘the people of the United States;’ leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure…. The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.” p11 The Constitution of No Authority

I have a distant deceased relative who was appointed a local representative of their district for the Ratification. He voted NO on behalf of the majority who appointed him. But what use was this when in an adjacent district the representative voted Yes? Ultimately, it carried by a narrow margin across the nation. There is some concern by a few historians that the proceedings were not devoid of fraud and propaganda, just as citizens of the US of A have finally openly observed in the 2020 election cycle.

In this preamble, the delegates assented to the several ridiculous notions:
1) to form a more perfect Union,
2) establish justice,
3) insure domestic tranquility,
4) provide for the common defense,
5) promote the General Welfare,
6) secure the blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR posterity,

To begin, if a union is perfect, there cannot be a “more perfect” union. This is an unarticulated admission that the Articles of Confederation were imperfect, and that a Constitution would remedy that defect. One “Alfred” wrote in opposition to the Constitution:

"When I look to our situation-climate, extent, soil, and its productions, rivers, ports; when I find I can at this time purchase grain, bread, meat, and other necessaries of life at as reasonable a rate as in any country; when I see we are sending great quantities of tobacco, wheat and flour to England and other parts of the globe beyond the Atlantic; when I get on the other side of the western mountains, and see an extensive country, which for its multitude of rivers and fertility of soil is equal, if not superior, to any other whatever when I see these things, I cannot be brought to believe that America is in that deplorable ruined condition which some designing politicians represent; or that we are in a state of anarchy beyond redemption, unless we adopt, without any addition or amendment, the new constitution proposed by the late convention; a constitution which, in my humble opinion, contains the seeds and scions of slavery and despotism. When the volume of American constitutions [by John Adams] first made its appearance in Europe, we find some of the most eminent political writers of the present age, and the reviewers of literature, full of admiration and declaring they had never before seen so much good sense, freedom, and real wisdom in one publication. Our good friend Dr. [Richard] Price was charmed, and almost prophesied the near approach of the happy days of the millennium. We have lived under these constitutions; and, after the experience of a few years, some among us are ready to trample them under their feet, though they have been esteemed, even by our enemies, as "pearls of great price." Anti-federalist Papers # 16

Two, the establishment of justice does not and never did arise from government. Government means rule and control. It does not specify that justice must be inherent or practiced by its officers. Many today equate Law with Government. But they are not synonymous. Government may at times need Law in order to appear impartial. But Law does not need Government to establish justice. Law exists to execute justice, by ensuring that full impartiality exists between complainants, and only a tribunal is necessary to perform that function.

Three, domestic tranquility at its apex exists when all outside interference is minimal. Everyone is left to their own devices, their own aspirations, and their personal sovereignty held inviolate. Redress to incursions into their tranquility is supplied by the execution of justice, which has nothing to do with retribution, so pervasive in the public’s mind today. This absence of interference government cannot do, by definition. To exist government must regulate and restrict our activities:

“It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.” p68 Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

“…a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed.” Anti-Federalist Papers #14

Four, provision for common defense is the only legitimate cause for its organization:

"The law is the organization of natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. p8 Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

To carry this out, no government is necessary, as evidenced by old West townships that formed their local laws, and elected a sheriff to execute them. During the goldrush period in California, the mining communities did not even form a charter, but communally dealt with violators of basic rights the same as a sheriff and a justice of the peace.

Five, the promotion of the General Welfare borders on a socialized or collectivized system. Today, with megacorporations controlling the activities of the populace and the health arm of the government, it is not inconceivable at all to conjure up a co-op or other private enterprise to promote the “General Welfare”of citizens in communities. Before the introduction of this loophole, communities were brought and held together by charities and foundations to supply such need. Such activity brought people closer together in common cause, tending to magnify the welfare of their neighbors in their daily lives.

Six, and the most laughable of all excuses for a government, is government securing the “blessings of Liberty”! Government does not create Liberty, but removes it by definition. George Washington was of the opinion that citizens must be willing to surrender some liberty in order to obtain the security of government. Some 165 years later Eisenhower declared that "If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."

As one citizen defined it, “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon. directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped. measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished...then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed. fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged,  condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed.” This is Liberty? It reminds me of the Germans a century ago who thought they were a free people all the while the conservative, religious right element of the population were supporting the establishment of a dictatorship that removed all their self-defining rights and institutions by the Reichstag on April 26, 1942 voting Adolf “supreme judge of the German people” which never assembled again.

Many years ago, having been indoctrinated like every other citizen, I was brought up to celebrate and honor the Constitution of the United States of America, and those men who concocted its form. I slowly learned over the intervening years that “something screwy is going on around here”, that Socialism was being heavily pushed in our institutions, that politicians would stand up and say what the populace desired to hear, but went off and did what they thought better of behind our backs, so long as they could maintain the appointment scam. This I thought for a time could be corrected if our representatives could be made to abide by the Federal Constitution. It was only in closely examining the enlarged colonial history not discussed in Pub Ed did I discover the tree was rotten at the outset. These men were not our benefactors, but our enslavers because every last one of them were bent on governing, and soon showed just how determined they were:

“When political independence was secured, the stark doctrine of the Declaration went into abeyance, with only a distorted simulacrum of its principles surviving. The rights of life and liberty were recognized by a mere constitutional formality left open to eviscerating interpretations, or, where these were for any reason deemed superfluous, to simple executive disregard; and all consideration of the rights attending ‘the pursuit of happiness’ was narrowed down to a plenary acceptance of Locke's doctrine of the predminent rights of property, with law-made property on an equal footing with labour-made property. As for popular sovereignty, the new State had to be republican in form, for no other would suit the general temper of the people; and hence its peculiar task was to preserve the appearance of actual republicanism without the reality.” p63 Albert J Nock, Our Enemy, the State

The problem with returning to Constitutional government is that even if it could be achieved—which it never did from the moment the ink was dry of the Signatories—it is such a flawed document with so many erroneous presumptions by inexperienced men possessed of considerable hubris and a conflict of interest, that it would only succeed in duplicating what we have already endured—a true Revolution. Notwithstanding their avowed examination of various forms of government in history, they missed the obvious fact: Government is control. It is rulership. As such, it can never preserve anyone’s Liberty nor Safety because by definition, government is predatory. As Hannah Arendt declared:

“Totalitarian terror is so often confused with the intimidation measures of tyranny or the terror of civil wars and revolutions because the totalitarian regimes we are familiar with developed directly out of civil wars and one-party dictatorships and in their beginnings, before they became totalitarian, used terror in precisely the same way as other despotic regimes we know of from history. The turning point that decides whether a one-party system will remain a dictatorship or develop into a form of totalitarian rule always comes when every last trace of active or passive opposition in the country has been drowned in blood and terror.” P298 Essays in Understanding

Even the “Founding Fathers” understood that Republics do not restore themselves, for they operate upon the non-existent virtue those men conceitedly thought existed among themselves. When handed the scepter by subterfuge, misdirection, and academic artifice, they proved right away that they had less virtue and self-restraint than America’s mountain men. They immediately sought to oppress the “People” with tariffs, taxes, conscription, and monetary fiat that destroyed the Liberty, Life, and Happiness of those who redeemed their financial oppression from the Crown, only to gain a local taskmaster.

H.L Mencken said:

“All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

IMO, we’ve had morons infesting the White House for at least half my adult life, and look what we now have there-- an aging, impudent, senile dukkeman about to drench Americans in totalitarian blood to have the way of his Drakh taskmasters!

REFERENCES
Forrest McDonald;
We the People
E Pluribus Unum
Novus Ordo Seclorum

Merrill Jensen
The New Nation

Albert J Nock
Our Enemy, the State

Richard Rosenfeld
American Aurora

John McConaughy
Who Rules America?

Lysander Spooner
The Constitution of No Authority

The Anti-Federalist Papers

Thomas Slaughter
The Whiskey Rebellion

Frédéric Bastiat
The Law