What is States Rights

Information about the creation of American Liberty and how to Restore American Liberty


Article Index


MYTH: Easter is derived from false pagan goddess

What Is A Christian Nation

Biblical References in Give Me Liberty Speech by Patrick Henry

HISTORICAL RECORD: Winter Months Grazing for Sheep in Bethlehem area

Fox News December 24, 2013: Too cold for shepherds in December

The Real Lincoln - Despot

Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Fourteen

MYTH: Too cold for shepherds to Tend Flocks in December - Part 2

Gun Control Coming to the Senate Floor on Monday

74th Anniversary of 'Gone with the Wind' premiere

The First Thanksgiving Day - flyer

The Death of Jefferson Davis - December 6 1889

Marietta Daily Journal - on The First Thanksgiving

Demonstration against Lindsey Graham & Southern demographic displacement

MYTH: Too Cold For Shepherds in December

December 4 was First Thanksgiving, in Virginia, not Plymouth

Next League Demonstrations Against Southern Demographic Displacement

Federal Government Propaganda Machine

What is wrong with Thumping the Bible?

Drones for our protection. For those who will believe anything!

Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Twelve
Al Benson, Jr.

Another prominent Virginian that had problems with the Constitution was Richard Henry Lee. He wrote Richard Henry Leea letter to Governor Edmund Randolph which was intended for the Virginia Gazette which, for some reason, they could not print. It ended up being printed in the New-York Journal in December of 1787. Mr. Lee seems to have had the new constitution fairly well figured out. He wrote: "The establishment of the new plan of government, in its present form, is a question that involves such immense consequences to the present times, and to posterity, that it calls for the deepest attention of the best and wisest friends of their country and of mankind; if it be found good after mature deliberation, adopt it, if wrong, amend it at all events, for to say (as many do) that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is really saying, that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying...If with infinite ease a convention was obtained to prepare a system, why may not another with equal ease be procured to make proper and necessary amendments? Good government is not the work of a short time, or of sudden thought."

In other words, let us not rush into this thing. Let us take our time and if we are going to do it, then do it right.

We've noticed in the recent mid-term elections that the Republicans definitely gained enough in House seats that they could impede the Marxist agenda o the present Democratic administration. Yet they seem reluctant to do so, especially at the leadership level. The Republican House leadership is more than willing to compromise with the Democrats so as not to impede their Marxist agenda, and we are forced to conclude that, at root, both parties have the same collectivist mindset regardless of Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Our uninformed, and mostly public school-educated electorate has yet to be able to discern the difference between what the politicians do and what they say. The concept of checking voting records against political verbiage has yet to occur to most. Hence the charade will continue no matter who is in office.

But Lee saw problems with the way the new government had been set up. He wrote: "In the new constitution, the president and senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances (as making all kinds of treaties which are to be the laws of the land) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They jointly appoint all officers civil and military, and they (the senate) try all impeachments either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves." Does anyone remember the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton, also known as "Slick Willy?" The House did its duty and found him guilty on two counts if I recall correctly.

When the impeachment process moved over to the Senate, they refused to do their duty and began to come up with all manner of reasons why they could not vote to impeach Clinton. In his interesting book Sellout--The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment author David Schippers noted the attitude of the Senate leadership when Rep. Henry Hyde sought to pass the impeachment proceeding along to the Senate. Schippers stated: "(Trent) Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said 'I'm in charge.' I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: Henry, you're not going to dump that garbage on us." So much for senate backbone when it came to doing the right thing (something Mr. Lott was never noted for anyway). They, from the leadership on down were not about to "get their hands dirty" by doing what was right. This is exactly the sort of thing that Richard Henry Lee was concerned about, and, all amendments to the contrary, this situation has remained unchanged from day one!

Lee accurately observed that: "It cannot be denied with truth that this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst. The only check to be found in favour of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives; which I believe may justly be called a mere shread or rag of representation: It being obvious to the least examination that smallness of number and great comparative disparity of power, renders that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government."

In other words, the House, all by its lonesome, is no match for the combined power of the president and the Senate. I think our present situation in Washington more than bears this out. The current Marxist administration, through its flunkies in the Senate, manages to stop any meaningful reform presented by the House to curtail the leftward impetus of this government.

Moreover, as previously mentioned, the House is beset with a group of Republicans whose worldview is little different from that of the socialist Democrats. Both of these political parties have been infiltrated by a coterie of individuals with power and influence in many areas and which is, in effect, an oligarchy. This oligarchy controls both houses of Congress, much of the media, our "educational" system, and the office of president-and no one will get close to the White House without their tacit approval.

Real representation for the average man is a myth. All we get are a lot of "conservative" rhetoric, coupled with lots of socialist action, which we are told by the managed media is "good for us." Actually, it's much better for the politicians and their corporate fascist friends in big business than it is for us. However, we are then told by the so-called conservatives that if we just "get back to the Constitution" all will be well. Seems to me that if we do that, we are just starting the cycle all over again with no remedy for the problems.

It's quite revelatory that Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and a host of others all told us at the beginning that if this constitution was enacted this is exactly what we would get. No one listened. How do you like it?

History has vindicated the Anti-Federalists and their position and made prevaricators out of those who told us how wonderful the new constitution would be. Maybe we need to begin to wake up and smell the coffee--if they haven't outlawed it before we get the message!

What is StatesRights? Part 8.
by Mike Crane
Morganton, Georgia

In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Patrick Henry was the most outspoken critic of the proposed new form of government, on June 4, 1788 he stated:

Mr. HENRY. "Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the {44} very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? …"

Patrick Henry pointed out just as clearly as Gov. Morris did on May 30, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the proposed government was a consolidated government:>

Mr. Govr. Morris explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.

Patrick Henry continued ( June 4, 1788) and the following is part of his commentary on Congress, the US House of Representatives:

I have trespassed so long on your patience, I am really concerned that I have something yet to say. The honorable {64} member has said, we shall be properly represented. Remember, sir, that the number of our representatives is but ten, whereof six is a majority. Will those men be possessed of sufficient information? A particular knowledge of particular districts will not suffice. They must be well acquainted with agriculture, commerce, and a great variety of other matters throughout the continent; they must know not only the actual state of nations in Europe and America, the situations of their farmers, cottagers, and mechanics, but also the relative situations and intercourse of those nations. Virginia is as large as England. Our proportion of representatives is but ten men. In England they have five hundred and fifty-eight. The House of Commons, in England, numerous as they are, we are told, are bribed, and have bartered away the rights of their constituents: what, then, shall become of us? Will these few protect our rights? Will they be incorruptible? You say they will be better men than the English commoners. I say they will be infinitely worse men, because they are to be chosen blindfolded: their election (the term, as applied to their appointment, is inaccurate) will be an involuntary nomination, and not a choice.

Patrick Henry has raised the very same argument that was debated on June 6, 1787 at the Convention of 1787 by General Pinkney.

General PINKNEY wished to have a good National Govt. & at the same time to leave a considerable share of power in the States. An election of either branch by the people scattered as they are in many States, particularly in S. Carolina was totally impracticable. He differed from gentlemen who thought that a choice by the people wd. be a better guard agst. bad measures, than by the Legislatures.

You be the judge! Look at the mess in Washington today! With both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate using the composition method proposed by James Madison – who was right? James Madison is called the father of the Constitution as he should be – he wrote the model – the Virginia Plan. He should also be called the father of the mess in Congress today and the lack of a proper agency of the States in the general government. Instead of Madison's feared " too great an agency of the State Governments in the General one "– today we have as Patrick Henry predicted " infinitely worse men ."

Also see the other parts of this series by Al Benson, Jr.:
Part 1
| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 |
Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14

If you found this article interesting, you might also like:
What is StatesRights by Mike Crane


Get US Off the USS Titanic

eMail this Page


Print This Page


Southern Party of Georgia
725 Ridgeview Road
Morganton Georgia 30560

Email This page

How To Stay Informed


  More Information on the Constitution, States Rights and American Liberty.

There are currently 18 citizens logged into the Southern Party of Georgia web site. Help spread the word and there will be more. Political correctness run amok will not end until we stop it.

Spread the word, recommend this page to a friend

Previous    Home     Next

To receive automatic notification when new articles are posted, click here

Email the Southern Party of Georgia

This page sponsored by:


Support Southern and Christian Companies