An expression of their long struggle against official British intransigence came out of the First Continental Congress in 1774, consisting of all thirteen colonies coming together for the first time. From that Congress, a Declaration of Rights was written, which provides an insight into how they forged the principles of a new government.
This isn’t a dry, brittle artefact the American colonists produced in 1774. They were
wrestling with who they were and how they wanted to live, while surrounded by the
feudal-age mind-set of the British government that was grinding them down with one
abuse after another. Isn’t this what we Americans are facing right now? Do you realize that we Americans will soon be thinking about the same issues as the American colonists, namely, a way to declare ourselves independent of the same clique of families that tried to grind down our forefathers and foremothers? And we Americans will soon be wrestling with a formal statement of independence describing who we are and how we want to live. Here is what the American colonists came up with, two years before the final Declaration of Independence in 1776:
“That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America, by the immutable
laws of nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and the several charters
or compacts, have the following rights:
Resolved, that they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent. Resolved, that our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the
time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, that by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of these rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Resolved, that the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative counsel: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation alone can be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has heretofore been used and accustomed: but, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interests of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament, as are bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue
on the subjects, in America, without their consent.
Resolved, that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinity, according to the course of that law.
Resolved, that they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.
Resolved, that these, his Majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the
immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.
Resolved, that they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.
Resolved, that the keeping a standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of the colony, in which such armies is kept, is against law.
Resolved, it is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English Constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other, that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a counsel appointed, during pleasure, by the Crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.
In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war (the French and Indian Wars), which demonstrate a systematic form to enslave America.
Resolved, that the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary, in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies:
- The several acts which impose duties for the purpose of raising revenue in America, extend the power of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges certificate to indemnify the prosecution from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and good sees, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights.
- Also an act for the better securing his Majesty’s dockyards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores which declares a new offense in America, and deprives the American subject of a constitutional trial by jury of the vicinity, by authorizing the trial of any person, charged with the committing any offense described in said act, out of the realm, to be indicted and tried for the same in any shyer or county within the realm.
- Also the three acts passed in the last session of Parliament, for stopping the port and blocking up the harbour of Boston, for altering the charter and government of Massachusetts Bay, and that which is entitled, ‘An act for the better administration of justice, etc.’
- Also, the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Québec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law and government) of the neighbouring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France.
- Also the active past in the same session, for the better providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in his Majesty’s service, in North America.
- Also, that the keeping a standing army in various of these colonies, in
time of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, in which such army is kept, is against law. To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit, but in hopes that their fellow subjects in Great Britain will, on a revision of them, restore us to that state, in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present, only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures:
1. To enter into a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement or association.
2. To prepare and an address to the people of Great Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British America: and
3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty, agreeable to resolutions already entered into.” When I read the resolutions above, I couldn’t help thinking of the similarities to our current financial dilemma: then, Great Britain’s national debt had more than doubled in the 20 years from 1754 to 1774; likewise, the current national debt of the U.S. government. And European Union countries’ debt skyrocketed in the last 20 years, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. And what happens in all such cases of governments that have become so fiscally unsound? Well, remember how the national debt came about in all governments of fiscal distress, irrespective of time: it was from receiving loans based on un-backed paper money from so-called “central banks” that deceptively called it “national debt.” Of course, it wasn’t debt; it was just newly printed, unbacked paper money that cost nothing to create. And the owners of any “central bank” were a very few powerful individuals who had gained concealed influence over the governments, because of this fictitious “national debt.”
Also, remember that these few powerful individuals were receiving huge fees, disguised as “interest” on the accumulating “national debt,” all for doing nothing more than printing unbacked money and giving it to victimized governments.
And, finally, remember that these few powerful individuals retain their concealed power over these governments because of the need for a “front” called a “central bank” that is in place so that the governments can continue to their spending in an irresponsible manner. The analogy to drug addiction may be helpful: the few powerful individuals who control the “central banks” that produce the unbacked paper money for the governments are the “pushers.” And the heads of the governments are the “addicts” (and are the minions of the clique of families)
Due to the arrangement between the two parties, it is in the interest of the pushers to keep pushing the unbacked paper money (characterized as loans, which they are not) on the heads of governments to keep running up the “national debt” from which the central banks can make higher fees. And, by the way, the pushers have the power to force the governments to pay them back a portion of the “national debt” by requiring a reduction in government spending, or forcing “austerity programs” on the public, or requiring a “bailout” of their “central bank.” These requirements are entirely fraudulent because no debt was actually owed to the “central banks.”