Aside from parents, those whom we call educators spend the most time with our children, and have the most influence on the things they learn. This is a huge trust and a huge responsibility; to teach our children the things they need to learn before they leave their homes and go out into society on their own.
Our Founding Fathers, those men who lived and participated in establishing America as an independent nation, felt that an educated society was the best defense against the encroachments upon the people’s liberty by their rulers. James Madison stated it thusly, “Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.”
In 1779 Thomas Jefferson submitted a bill to the Virginia Legislature entitled A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge. In his preamble to this bill Jefferson states, “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than other to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shown, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural power to defeat its purposes.”
For education to have the aforementioned effects it must, first and foremost, be honest and comprehensive. To fulfill its purpose, education should serve to do as Noah Webster said in the following quote, “But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.”
The most idiotic thing I think could happen in regards to education would be to allow our government to become involved in establishing the curriculum under which our children are taught; especially as that curriculum pertains to the powers granted government. That is akin to letting the fox guard the hen house. The easiest way for government to exceed the powers granted it would be for them to teach our children that there are no limits upon the powers they can assume.
Yet I’d be willing to bet that were you to ask any recent high school graduate to explain the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution by those who drafted it, 9 out of 10 would not be able to do so. If you were to ask them to explain why our president is chosen by an electoral college and not a popular vote, they could not do so. Not only is the education our children are receiving lacking in thoroughness, it is also rife with lies; particularly in regards to certain events from our nation’s history.
Yet these children grow into voters, and they vote based upon their understanding of what it means to be an American, and their knowledge of our political system. Once they reach adulthood their ideas and beliefs are firmly set in their minds, and anyone who threatens those beliefs finds themselves battling against minds unwilling to accept any evidence which disproves those belief systems.
Yet, as John Adams said in his closing arguments in defense of the British soldiers on trial for murder in what we now call the Boston Massacre, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” You can deny them, insult the person speaking them, or ignore them; but it won’t change the fact that they are the truth.
In varying degrees everyone who has ever walked across that stage and been handed a high school diploma has been lied to about the history of our country and its system of government. The job of our educators is to teach our children the truth; and in that they have failed. So, here are a couple of truths you probably did not learn in school.
Our Constitution was illegally written and ratified.
The day after the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft a Declaration of Independence, they appointed another committee to draft a constitution of sorts, outlining a system of government for the 13 Colonies. After a year of debating the proposal submitted to the Congress, the final draft of the Articles of Confederation was submitted to the States for ratification on November 15, 1777. It wasn’t until 1781 that they were formally ratified, but once they were, the Articles of Confederation became our nation’s first constitution.
Article 13 of these Articles of Confederation states, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.“ (My emphasis)
By the end of the Revolution certain men felt that these Articles of Confederation did not bestow government the powers required to conduct the affairs of a nation; such as regulate commerce and collect taxes. In 1786 a convention was held at Annapolis Maryland in the hopes of amending the Articles of Confederation, but few attended and nothing of any import was done.
However, one thing they did do was send out a call for a convention of delegates from all 13 States to attend a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, the be held in the city of Philadelphia the following summer. This was considered by the Congress and in a document dated February 21, 1787 they declared, “Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson esqr. chairman of the Commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia.”
This conventions sole purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, upon which the States could then vote to ratify or reject…nothing more. Yet, even before the convention assembled James Madison had plans to exceed the authority granted the delegates by their State Legislatures. In a letter dated April 16, 1787, a full month before the convention began, he sent a letter to George Washington outlining his plan for an entirely new system of government, to which Washington responded favorably.
The State of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to this convention; fearing that it would produce changes to the system that would not be in their best interests. Patrick Henry declared that he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. Of note is many of the leaders of the push for independence were not in attendance at this convention. Samuel Adams was not in attendance, nor was Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Robert Yates and John Lansing left the convention when they realized it was exceeding the authority granted them by the New York State Legislature. George Mason and Edmund Randolph, both delegates from the State of Virginia, opposed the finished document; primarily due to it lacking a Bill of Rights.
Once the finished document was voted upon by the convention it was forwarded to the State Legislatures, who then sent out calls for delegates to be gathered to attend Assemblies to argue the subject of ratification of this Constitution; a clear violation of the Articles of Confederation which stated that it was the State Legislatures who would vote either for or against any changes to the Articles of Confederation. I would have to say that scrapping them for an entirely new system of government would be considered a MAJOR change to them; wouldn’t you?
And on top of all this, it would only take the assent of nine States, not all thirteen as required by the Articles of Confederation, to ratify this Constitution. What they were doing was using the conditions for modifying the Constitution to achieve its ratification. It must be remembered, that at that point in our history the Constitution was nothing more than a proposal; it had not yet achieved the legal standing as the Supreme Law of the Land because it had not yet been ratified.
How is it then that they could use one of the clauses within that proposal to achieve its ratification; when by using that clause they violated the existing law concerning making changes to the existing constitution?
The only conclusion one can come to is that the Constitution was created by men who overstepped their just authority, and it was ratified by the States in violation of existing law.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Anyone today who says this, or supports the cause of the Confederate States of America, is automatically labeled a racist by those who have been indoctrinated by their politically correct, revisionist educators. The truth is that the Civil War was a act of hostility by the government of the Northern States against their neighbors to the South who had exercised their just right to secede from the Union and establish their own system of government to manage their affairs. This was the bedrock principle upon which our nation was founded, and is carved into stone in the Declaration of Independence.
I’m not denying that slavery existed, and that it was a crime against humanity. What I am saying is that it was not the cause of the war. The war began when Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to suppress what he called rebellion in the Cotton States.
You may not know this, but originally only 7 States seceded from the Union. It was not until Lincoln issued his call for volunteers to suppress this so-called rebellion that the other 4 States, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded; only doing so because they believed Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the seceded States was an act of war against a sovereign nation.
In response to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, Virginia Governor John Letcher had the following words, “You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.”
The government’s interference in the expansion of slaves into newly admitted States may have been an issue which led to secession, but it was not the only one. You have to remember, that the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, and therefore the federal government could not lawfully decide the newly admitted States could not institute slavery within their borders. The only reason the Republicans in the North sought to restrict slavery was due to the 3/5’s Clause of the Constitution; which would have allowed the Democrats of the slave owning States to retain a much stronger voice in what laws the government passed. Sure, there were prohibitionists who sought the abolishment of slavery, but it was not the primary reason the government sought to restrict the expansion of slavery, or meddle with it in States where it already existed.
If slavery was the sole reason the Civil War was fought, as so many believe today, why would the South risk a costly war against the North when, to keep their slaves, all they would have to do is vote to ratify a Constitutional Amendment which would make slavery permanent in the United States?
Such an amendment did exist; having passed through both the House and the Senate. It was titled the Corwin Amendment, and it stated, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
In his Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln spoke of this Corwin Amendment, stating, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
He furthermore declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
How could the Civil War have been fought over slavery when the President said it was not his intention of interfering with slavery in the States it already existed in? In a letter written to Horace Greeley in 1862, Abraham Lincoln made his views clear in regards to the subject of slavery, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
These are just two areas where our educators have lied to us, and our children; and there are many more. They have not been honest and forthcoming when it comes to the powers given government by the illegally ratified Constitution, nor have they imbued in our children the love of liberty that so brilliantly burned in the breasts of those who first established our Republic all those years ago.
Yet those who graduate from these indoctrination centers have the audacity to believe that they are making informed decisions; when the underlying belief systems they use to justify those decisions is based upon lies and a distorted understanding of events.
But try getting people to accept that all they believe is based upon a lie. After all, I have achieved such stunning success at it; (And if you don’t recognize sarcasm, that was it right there).
You, your children, and when they grow up, their children, won’t hear these things in school. If people want to learn the truth they are going to have to first toss out everything they have been taught and seek the truth on their own. It’s like the old story about the Zen Master and the teacup, “Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
The truth is un-teachable to those who refuse to let go of their existing beliefs and open their minds to the fact that all they have been taught may have been a lie. Until that happens I may as well be speaking to an empty room.
January 18, 2017
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told) AND don’t forget to pick up your copy of ROSS: Unmasked – An Angry American Speaks Out – and stay tuned – Neal has a new, greatly expanded book coming soon dealing with the harsh truths about the so-called American Civil War of 1861-1865. Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.