Orig Pub. Date March 21, 2021

Lecture Series

I

Dedicated to Michael Rapaport, and the Michael Rapaport’s ’s of the world, who said, “I never spoke on politics…I never knew anything…I never gave it a second thought…I didn’t care about politics. It never crossed my…I felt it…it’s like you know…It has nothing to do with me…”

(source: Youtube, All The Smoke, episode 66, time, 3:30-12:58)

 Also dedicated to #EducationReform and all the high school students who have been denied their Social Studies lessons due to the pandemic.

 Thirdly dedicated to the tragic, ignorant, denial inherent in the siege of January 6, 2021.

II

Proposed High School Social Studies Curriculum

Semester One: Economics

Semester Two: Politics aka Participation In Government

Semester Three: Global Restory 1 Africa

Semester Four: Global Restory 2 Asia

Semester Five: Global Restory 3 European

Semester Six: Global Restory 4 Central America

Semester Seven: Restory 5 American 1

Semester Eight: Restory 6 American 2

Notes:

(1) Restory not history. Pronounced like history and having the same meaning that history is supposed to have, that is ”A retelling of a past event,” but etymologically more accurate.

(2) Currently politics or Participation In Government is offered in semester five and economics in semester eight. However, restory is a reaction to economic and political phenomenon. Therefore, restory should follow economics and politics.

(3) #EducationReform

T of C
Part Three through Part Seven Lecture
Part Eight Commentary

 Part III

Introduction

Economics and politics cannot be discussed without first understanding their relationship to geography then to culture. Why geography you may ask. Well what came first, the planet or the people that live on the planet? The answer is of course the planet and then the people that live on the planet.

 Based on this we can easily see the planet is the geography and the people that live on the planet is where culture rises. For some context to culture let’s look at the Merriam-Webster definition:

 “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time”

 The dependent qualifier: “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits…”

 Meaning, things being done.

 Independent qualifier: “of a racial, religious, or social group”

 Meaning, after one (any observer or researcher) segregates people by some parameter, whether it be race, religion, or any characterization. With the word “social,” derived from “society,” the most neutral word we homo sapiens have for our fellow people, being used for the any characterization part of the definition.

 Another aspect of the definition that must be recognized is that culture is an outside looking in, concept. That is, it is referenced by one looking at another group, or one looking at his own group for hypothetical purposes.

 And, what is being looked at? The groups way of life. Or, more accurately the beliefs that the way of life has evolved from. Also, known as “The characteristic features of everyday existence…”

 Accordingly, there are several ways to explain geography and its relationship to culture, but they all come down to the same thing.

Geography is the land, while culture is analyzing what people, broken down into groups, do with the land that they are located on.

IV

Economics

Now we can look at the relationship culture has to economics.

 Returning to Merriam-Webster it is defined thusly.

“a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.”

 The first words of the definition, “a social science,” is cause for pause. Normally “social science” is a term used to distinguish it from the math that is inherent in the term “science.” However, the very word “economics” conjures up visions of money, numbers, and math.  As does the words that follow the opening “…production, distribution, and consumption.” To take it a step further “Social Science” is the term used in the colleges and universities of our nation. While “Social Studies,” is the term used in our high schools. The former implies more data driven study. While the latter implies less. So why is economics “a social science.”? In the context of this definition of economics “social” means “people,” Like it does in the definition of culture. (Just as an aside, oftentimes, I like to remind my students how easy social studies, or social science, are because “it’s the study of people, and what are we?”)

 Nonetheless, Webster’s definition is flawed. If only because it takes such strict analysis to see how similar it is to the definition of culture. Here is the definition of economics I grew up with:

 “The study of how man decides to distribute limited resources to unlimited wants and needs.”

 The term “The study” means “To analyze,” or “look into.”

 The term “Social Science” is abstract because it forces one to have to use their minds’ eye to define “Social Science” simultaneous to reading/learning what the definition of economics is. In other words multitask. It’s well known that multitasking or attempting to multitask is a flawed concept.

 Webster continues, “concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption,” while the old-school (former) definition is simply “how (we) decide to distribute limited resources.”

 Again, if culture is how a group lives, then both definitions of economics are references to culture. They are simply different ways of saying “how a group lives.” Again, Webster is more abstract, “concerned chiefly with description and analysis.” While the former definition plainly states, “how (we) decide” to live.

 The Webster definition, “produce, distribute, and consume.” The former definition, “to distribute limited resource.” Without strict analysis one wouldn’t realize they are different ways of saying the same thing. Both definitions are referencing something called resources, or things that come from the land. Webster requires one to ask oneself “produce, distribute, and consume” what? Meanwhile, the former definition not only introduces the what, also introduces the concept of value. As in limited versus unlimited resources.

 It is not until one understands the what in what is being discussed part of economics that one can begin to grasp the concept of value in the what is being discussed part of economics. In other words when I was studying economics in school there were semester long courses offered to students on the subject of “limited resources.” Those courses were called “scarcity.” Limited resources leads to scarcity. I ’m sure you understand that. Nevertheless, they were also courses in denial, because the whole premise of those courses rested on the philosophy that there is not enough (limited) resources on the planet for everyone. But, of course, that’s not the issue at all. The real issue is uneven distribution of resources. That’s where Webster’s use of the term “distribution” come in, because for every individual who has more than he needs, there is an individual who has less than he needs.

 Now here is where the rubber meets the road!

 Webster continues with “goods and services.” While the former definition continues with “wants and needs.” What are “goods and services. Well we know. They are “wants and needs?” But we only know that because we have both definitions to compare and contrast. One doesn’t normally ask oneself this question when one reads the Webster definition. Instead, at some level of ones consciousness, one substitutes “I know what goods and services are”. But that’s the rub. Because we know what goods and services are we fail to recognize the subtle diversionary tactic that is being applied and performed. One is being forced to mentally crossover from “I don’t know what economics is so I’m looking it up in the dictionary.” To “I know what goods and services are so I know what economics is.” Despite continuing to be somewhat unclear. Both definitions of economics, to some extent, are using economics-based terms to explain economics. Webster is simply over the top. This is what is known as a circular definition. Circular definitions use the same or similar words to define a word. Circular definitions are not good definitions. Circular definitions are not supposed to be used. Particularly in a dictionary. A definition is supposed to clarify and explain. Not be circular and thus leave a person unclear.

 Accordingly, several questions arise. Why have we not come up with a non-flawed correct definition for economics? What are we not being told? What does a correct definition look like?

 The answers are simple. To the question of why have we not come up with a non-flawed definition? It’s either because the definers don’t know the correct definition or don’t want to say what the correct definition is. Most likely it’s the latter. To the question of what are we not being told? Well we know with culture “how people live” can be a myriad of things from “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits.“ While economics is specific to “goods and services” or “wants and needs.” Wants and needs. That’s it! If one does not have what one wants and needs one dies. That leads to the word that is being left out of both definitions. Survival. So, that visceral effect we feel when we think in economic terms, that’s survival.

 We need food and shelter, but how do we get it? We don’t just take whatever we want off the tree when we are hungry or cover ourselves with whatever is available when we need shelter. We have developed a system for our survival. In fact, “system” is a synonym for “economics.” Culture is generic. While economics is specific to how a group survives. We can even consider economics as a specific part of the study of culture. That is, one of its main “features.” While money or money-like items is one of the main features of economics.

 Understanding economics this way is also supported etymologically. Because economics is Greek for “eco” meaning house, and “nomics” meaning “management.” House management is about money and budgets. Accordingly, if we are looking at, or studying, only our house then that would be microeconomics. If we are looking at, or studying, the whole society then that would be macroeconomics.

 Now, that we know it is the concept of survival that has been left out of the definition of economics we also know the accepted definition is not really a definition, but, for lack of a better characterization, an innuendo. Which brings us to the last question raised. That of what should the definition of economics be? I propose the following.

 Economics is a part of culture, in particular the survival strategy developed by the group.

V Economics (cont.)

Be the definition of economics as it may, we have adapted well-known names for our three predominate economic systems. Those names are capitalism, socialism, and communism.

 The concept of capitalism is probably as old as humans. (No this is not a reference to the biblical Caine and Able. It may be a reference to the first sexual transaction. Adam and Eve? But that’s a little beyond the scope of this lecture) When the first person decided to hold on to more than he or she needed and to only give some of the extra away after being given something in return that’s capitalism.

 What we call capitalism today really began to take hold about five hundred years ago with the actions of a man named Chris. Chris, an Italian merchant marine, wanted to make some money, so he closed a deal with the King and Queen of Spain that allowed him to sail around the world in search of that money. He landed on an uncharted island in today’s Caribbean Sea. The inhabitants of the island welcomed him with gifts of gold. To have more and just plain find the source of the gold Chris demanded to know where the gift-giving inhabitants of the island got the gold from. But they did not speak his language, so to make the point clearer Chris chopped off their hands and enslaved a few.

 This beginning led to a huge trading business between several European nations and several geographic locations in what became known as The New World. The period became known as the Age of Mercantilism. The Age of Mercantilism expanded into the transatlantic slave trade. The concept of capitalism continued to expand with the development of the Age known as The Industrial Revolution.

 A man named Adam Smith is known as “the father of economics” and even “capitalism,” because of a book he wrote, despite his never really using the term capitalism. His book was published in the very big year of 1776. It was entitled An Inquiry into The Wealth Of Nations. It was a look at mercantilism, the industrial revolution, and the role they played in bringing riches to England and other nations at the time.

 Meanwhile, both the terms socialism and communism were popularized by Karl Marx and Frederick Engel in their book published in 1847, entitled The Communist Manifesto. Their book was critical of mercantilism and the industrial revolution to the extent that they saw those evolutions as being the cause of tragic poverty. They even came up with solutions they called “socialism” and the perfection thereof “communism.” Then Marx published another book in 1867 entitled Das Kapital. Which translates to “The Capital.” That book, or at least the title, popularized the term capitalism. Still, capitalism, socialism, or communism, they are all the same. Here’s why.

 The primary distinction between the three economic systems, is simply how wants and needs, or if you prefer, goods and services are distributed. In a capitalistic society the wants and needs are supposed to be distributed by an individual. In a socialistic society sometimes the wants and needs are distributed by an individual, other times by the government. In a communistic society all the wants and needs are distributed by the government, and is known as “the perfection of socialism.”

 Here’s an example. Imagine you are sitting at home watching a big game on television and at halftime decide to run into the kitchen to make yourself a sandwich only to find you have no more bread. So, you then decide to run out to the corner store to buy a loaf of bread, and then run back to make the sandwich before the second half of the game begins. Who supplied the bread? Or better who owned the store? As the common definition goes, if it was an individual, then you live in and practice a capitalistic system. If it was the government, you live in and practice either a socialistic or communistic system. Depending on whether it is sometimes the government and other times an individual, socialism, or always the government, communism. However, in capitalism, like in socialism, some goods and services are always supplied by the government. Well known examples being fire, police, sanitation, etc. But, there’s also public transportation, reduced fare public transportation, food stamps, public assistance payments, public school, public school free lunch programs, unemployment compensation, government grants to corporations during the recession of 2008, free pandemic vaccines…Then there’s all the licenses and government issued permits required, for one to have the right to sell or distribute ones goods and services in a capitalistic society,

 Here in the USA we self-identify as capitalistic and consider ourselves the standard bearers for the concept, despite being a socialist economy. Because of this it is taboo to mention socialism in the same sentence as USA. As an alternative we have developed the term “Mixed Economy.”

Likewise, with socialism and communism. No socialist society has ever reached perfection, communism, other than in name. In reason in short, is there will always be class struggle. Therefore, so-called communist nations are also socialist, or mixed economies. 

Another reason all three systems are the same is because all the economic concepts are studied in the context of the predominate system. The sandwich scenario, for example, is a reference to the economic concept of Supply and Demand. That is the question of who is supplying, producing and distributing, the bread verses who is demanding, or consuming, the bread? The larger more outside the box of one system is who would best supply the bread? 

Supply and demand, scarcity, microeconomics versus macroeconomics, labor, trade, LIFO versus FIFO, standard of living, financial markets, international economics, their all studied as by-products of the predominant economic system. No one in any society has the nerve to mention any findings they might have that are outside of the box of their system. Heck, why would one? He or she could be killed for that. 

Which brings us back to my initial statement about all the systems being the same. It is too bad we do not acknowledge the role economics plays in everything we do. Tragic in fact, because little as it may be known many hot wars, that include real death and destruction, have been fought during what has been euphemistically called “The Cold War.” These wars, proxy and direct, have been fought over economy conflicts. Not that the real people involved ever knew this. We call them collateral damage. 

Remember, economics is about survival. That is life versus death. So, although the primary distinction between these three economic ways of life—how wants and needs are satisfied—is simple and easy to identify the effect is not. Change has consequences. So, the next time you hear the word “economist” remember he or she is only a partial reference to the concept of economics. And the next time you see a definition of economics remember it has devolved because honest discussion of it is threatening.

VI

Politics 

The word “politics,” etymologically, evolved from two Greek words “polis” as Athens Greece was called in ancient times, meaning “city” and “politēs” meaning “‘citizen. Which when put together becomes “a citizen who works for the polis,” or “a politician.” 

From that etymology Merriam-Webster has evolved “the art or science of government,” as its first of several definitions. However, Webster’s definitions are more a hodgepodge of circular abstractions and enuendo than they are definitions. Quelled from that hodgepodge is the following: 

“the exercise of authority over an organization, state, etc., direction, control, rule, management.” 

Accordingly, 

“The exercise of authority” 

“Exercise,” is a reference to doing, or acting. Like “practice” can be a reference to a doctor or lawyer doing their occupation. Meaning exercise is something that is on-going and occurs every day. 

“Authority,” is of course a reference to power, or being the boss, or leader. 

“over an organization, state, etc.” 

All three terms, “organization,” “state,” “etc.” means the authority or power is over more than one person. Further, that this entity that has the power can have it over any kind of other entity. But size and purpose are of no consequence. Therefore, when there is more than one to the entity government is present. 

“direction, control, rule, management” 

This is to emphasize the meaning of “authority.” Which is rules and regulations and also the process of controlling things or people, or management.  Therefore, like economics politics is also a value. An indirect value, but a value nevertheless. In terms of economics there is of course the product or the resource. For example apples. But politics, or an organization, whether that organization be a state or any other kind of organization, is an additional indirect value laid on the economic value. It is created as the best way to control the economic value. Organizations must be managed. Management means rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are inherent in all organizations. 

Accordingly, if economics is the resources or actual value that is being distributed, then politics is the rules and regulations necessary for economics to be viable. That is, to efficiently distribute the value. 

Still, although it’s nice, grand in fact, to now see how economics and politics relate to each other we have not yet reached understanding. Or as educational psychologist Dr. Benjamin Bloom would say in his taxonomy of education we have not reached “synthesis.” 

Let’s look at it from a state politics point of view. There are basically three aspects to the definition of politics. One, is more than one person is involved. That is “organization, state, etc.” Two is value. That is people only organize for the efficient handling of the value. Three is there are rules & regulations in every organization. Let’s look at the first two together. 

If a decision to eat an apple only involves a single person that is his or her wants or needs, there is no issue. That is, politics and government are not present. There may involve indecisiveness. That is, “am I or am I not hungry,” but it is not politics. We can even go back to geography and the planet to further explain. If there is only one person in the whole world who wants the apple that fell from the tree there is no problem. But the moment a second person comes along, whether person two wants that apple or not, there are thousands of apples right there or not, or person one is simply paranoid about the “limited” number of apples, or not, we have crossed over into politics. That is, the decision as to how the apple(s) is going to be shared, or not. Of course there may be some unreasonableness on the part of one or the other to even think about such a silly question with it only being one extra person and so many apples around, but people have been killed over a nickel. 

That’s politics. 

Here’s another example. Imagine that you are in school taking a class on agriculture. You go to class as usual, but on this one day you and your 30 plus classmates somehow get locked in the classroom, without the teacher, unable to get help and left with nothing but a barrel of red ripe delicious apples on the teacher’s desk. What would you and your classmates do?

In this scenario the apples are the “value” and at some point hunger is going to set in.

Would you just walk up and start eating the apples? Or would you wait to get consensus on that question? 

That’s politics. 

Politics are the rules and regulations necessary for the economics to work. In other words, “the rules of the game” or the rules of survival. In fact, the moment you must ask the question of whether to eat the apples or wait for consensus you have crossed over into politics. This is why we have the term “political-economy.” Politics and economics cannot be completely separated from each other. They are like the mind and the body. You cannot live without both parts. But let’s get back to our scenario. 

Now, it is day two. You awake. Everyone awakes. You, and everyone, are now hungrier. How long would you wait to eat? Let’s say three of your classmates from the back walk up to the barrel of apples together and decide to take over the apples. Further that they have weapons and that one of them while biting into one of the apples shouts out “they’re our apples now!” 

How would you feel about that? Would you stand and protest, or would sit quietly? And if you protested suppose you were quickly and casually killed for your protest before you could get anyone to join you. And, of course all of your classmates witnessed it. Perhaps some of them were about to join you, but not now. Would it be correct to call the gang of three the new government? Government of the apples? 

Let’s say that night, while the gang of three are sleeping and rotating their guard duty, three other classmates make a desperate agreement to take over the apples for themselves. They find a way to slip one out a back door and while that one is away they pass out flyers that say, “we’ve got to get rid of the gang of three.” Then the one who left returns not with people to help, but with guns. And suppose everyone is startled awake by the early morning sound of gunfire as the desperate three shoot their way to the front of the class and the apples. They kill the gang of three and then as they bite into the apples one of them shouts out “they’re our apples now!” 

Several important political concepts can be understood with this hypothetical.

Dictatorship: the gang of three: absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.

Propaganda: the flyers: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc…

Revolution: the desperate three: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. 

And, we can expand on the hypothetical. If the Desperate Three decide to be fair and allow the class to vote on how the apples will be distributed, including who will be the lead distributor what kind of government would that be called?

Democratic: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 

What would the lead apple distributor be called? President, King, Queen, Czar, Emperor, Pharaoh, Caliph, Leader or Fuehrer, the latter term translates to “leader.” 

What are revolutionaries called when they fail?

Rebels. 

What is it called if all the students in the class had decided to run to the desk and grab as many apples as they could?

Anarchy.

Notice how out of this scenario a state can be created. The four keys to having a state are 1. territory: the classroom, 2. people: the students, 3. Sovereignty: recognition by others, this classroom was separate and distinct from the other classrooms, 4. location of sovereignty: whoever had control of the apples, or in the USA Washington D.C. 

Would we like to create a classroom flag for our state? 

Would we like to create a song dedicated to you who died over the apples and call it the national anthem? We could even put in the restory books whatever we want, that you were tall, and tan, and young and lovely, and never told a lie, and were the most honest person to ever walk the face of the earth. 

Getting back to political-economy, What if the vote is not about how the apples will be distributed, but who will be chosen to decide how the apples will be distributed?

Then we are discussing a Representative-Democracy or Democratic-Republic. Notice the distinction in terminology between economic concepts political concepts: capitalism, socialism, communism, versus democracy, dictatorship, monarchy. Notice how the economic and political concepts can be intermixed: social democrat or communist dictatorship. 

Accordingly, economics is the value that leads to the organization. Politics are the rules to the game of economics, or, as now established, the rules & regulations necessary for economics to be viable. You may have heard the expression “everything comes down to money.” The more enlightened expression is “politics comes down to money.” 

Still, this has all been the clothing of politics let’s look at the essence of politics. 

VII

Politics (cont.) 

In order to discuss the third aspect of politics we must first discuss duality or mutual dependence of a concept. For example, the duality of survival, the essence of economics, is selfishness. There’s even a cliché for It “The first rule of survival is self-preservation.” 

Now, lets look at the essence of politics, rules and regulations, or in a state politics scenario “law”. The essence of law, the codification (statutory) of a societies practices and beliefs, is penalty. That is, for every law there is a penalty for not complying with that law. 

Essentially this all means because of our independent nature, the duality of survival, and the duality of law, there can never be complete agreement by all members of the society on the law. Further, that because the essence of economics and politics is not made plain, but in fact hidden, the penalty aspect of law is exasperated. 

It is for this reason, little as it’s known, that we have the Michael Rapaport’s of the world who say, “I don’t know about politics,” or “I don’t care about politics”. What they are really saying is “I don’t want to talk politics and economics because I really only care about myself, and at some level of my consciousness I know that the reality of the matter is being hidden from me, which makes it all frustrating, and even an insult to my intelligence, so it’s all a waste of time”. 

Meanwhile, I say the secrets, dishonesty, and failure to explain the role of the duality of law all starts with the embarrassingly lie-filled, to the point of meaninglessness, stories we tell our young people in the schools of our nation every day. Devolved stories. Created for wrongly rationalized national survival reasons. Is the reason we, homo-sapiens, have the problems we have. We can sometimes see this wrongly rationalized survival tactic in the family dynamic. When parents do not tell their children the truth, but instead whatever will maintain their, the parents, authority-figure scheme. Only to find in the long run it has caused them, the parents, to lose their children’s respect. Nevertheless, understanding how our national organization was born is an excellent way to see the role economics and the duality of law play in the matter. 

Most stories about the birth of the USA, for example, start with a distinct glossing over or even completely leaving out the birth of each of the 13 colonies. Our infancy. That’s the first error. What variables made for our birth? Who were our parents? Where were we born? Why were we born?  When were we born? If we want to know or remember who we are these are important questions. So, let’s start here. 

The 13 colonies were born out of something called Charters. Contracts, between the government of the nation of Britain, represented by a monarch, and it’s people. Which were sometimes represented by a group, a corporation, and sometimes an individual. The contracts legitimized British people ownership of the land, by hook or by crook. Which is also called “civilized.” In consideration of money to be paid to the monarch. In other words, they were business deals. In effect economics and politics from the beginning. 

In 1607 the first charter to be fulfilled, or “virgin land” to be taken over, was renamed the Virginia Colony and is todays state of Virginia. The people that came over were white British men. Woman were later contracted and brought over in mass, to service the men. Aboriginals, Indians, were slaughtered and brought under control. More white men and women were contracted and brought over as indentured servants. And in 1619 enslaved black men and black woman and black children begin being brought over.  There are, of course, distinctions within each charter story, distinctions that led to independent spirits for each, but this was the basic modus operandi for all the charters that became known as the 13 colonies. 

Thus, they did not see themselves as a united force. In fact, they self-identified as members of their colonial namesake. Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc. Sometimes as members of the northern colonies, the middle colonies, or the southern colonies. However, not as some united state. Until it was the most efficient way to administrate what would become known as the Revolutionary War of 1776. 

It is this same independent nature that led to the Federal form of government we have today. And, the resulting independent States Rights based arguments we the people have to suffer with every day. For example, Covid and whether we all should be wearing masks. 

Now we can move on to the more conventional narrative as to the birth of the USA by jumping to 1754, and a meeting called the Albany Congress. “Congress” is the word that was commonly used back then to refer to any large formal meeting that featured lawmakers, or legislators. The attendees to a congress were called “delegates.” Today they would be called “representatives.” The meeting that occurred in Albany New York in 1754 was organized by the British. They were the ruler of the 13 colonies. The British organized the meeting because the British King wanted the colonies to help with its war against the French and Aboriginal (Indian) people living in Canada and the Ohio Valley. Both land areas of which formed the western border of the 13 colonies. Each of the 13 colonies had their own colonial legislature and governor. So, it was they who commissioned delegates to go to the Albany Congress. 

Seven colonies sent delegates to the meeting. Plans were submitted by those delegates to the British. However, by the close of that meeting it was Benjamin Franklin’s plan that was accepted. Ben Franklin, one of the colonial delegates from the Pennsylvania Colony was a newspaper publisher at the time. His plan included the uniting of the colonies with a leader to be called a President General who would coordinate with whoever the British were to decide on to be their representative. The plan also included a grand legislative council, treaty making ability, raising an army and navy, tax collection, and what became a famous cartoon of a snake. The cartoon snake was cut in pieces with each piece representing one of the colonies, it showed how strong the snake, and thus the 13 colonies, could be if the pieces were to unite, and it included a caption, “Join or Die.” 

That “Albany Plan” is one of the things that lead to Ben Franklin becoming known as a leader at the meeting and later of the 13 colonies. He was 48 years old at the time and today should also be known as the father of the USA. Instead, it is George Washington who is known as such. Even though during the Albany Congress Washington was a 22-year-old and busy losing battles over in the Ohio Valley as a soldier for the British. That war became known as the French and Indian War.

 It is important to note here “the Ohio Valley” is a euphemism (that is hidden) for “economic interests.” The French had a thriving fur trade there, the colonists had begun moving into the area, despite the fact that doing so meant they were going beyond the borders of their charter. And, they were doing so without paying the required rent to the British. Thus, the French and Indian War was a business decision. 

Meanwhile, despite Franklin’s plan never being accepted the importance of it is that it showed the colonies how they could become a self-governing nation as opposed to being ruled by the British Crown. The colonies were already communicating with each other through their governors and legislatures. The act of sending delegates evidenced that. The problem was territoriality-based divisions between the colonies. So, the idea of self-government would have to percolate. It did not take long however before the original question of efficiently fighting the war against France and the aboriginals morphed into that of colonial independence from Britain. The French and Indian War ended in 1763, by 1765, the colonies were campaigning out loud for their independence from Britain. In 1765 the complaints were motivated by a tax imposed by the British, the Stamp Act, on goods coming into the colonies. 

After the French and Indian War the British needed to replenish their treasury. The age of mercantilism created an obvious and easy way for Britain to accomplish the task. Simply require that all materials printed for commercial and legal use in the colonies, from newspapers and pamphlets to playing cards and dice have the embossed British stamp on them. The stamp would mean the tax had been paid. The outcry of “the people” was louder than “ever previously heard.” “The people” must be put in quotes, because in reality “the people” is only a small fraction of those that lived in the 13 colonies. The smallness of this fraction must be recognized for a few reasons. One, is most people were simply concerned with their day-to-day economic survival not the ways and wherefores of British rule. Two, with the small role media played during that time people oftentimes new nothing of what was happening in the legislative halls of the colonies. Three, because only white men who owned land could vote. 

There is an exercise I do with my students when I teach the concepts of the vote and democracy. I ask them all to stand up and then I begin “if you are black or of color sit down.” “If you are a female sit down.” “If you rent your home or apartment sit down.” Invariably there will be either 1 white student standing or no students standing. The point being, when our nation was formed only white men who owned property had the right to vote. This is why the founders of our nation are referred to as the “fathers.” And why the word “people” needs to always be contextualized. In fact, the best way to perceive “people” is as a euphemism for “the leaders.” Or even something like “the few,” “the bold,” versus “the masses.” 

Meanwhile, “never seen before” is in quotes because the Sugar Act (1764), which levied new taxes on imports of textiles, wines, coffee and sugar; the Currency Act (1764), which caused a major decline in the value of the paper money used by colonists had previously been imposed, the difference with the Stamp Act is it directly affected an unwritten part of the merchant colonists’ operations, namely smuggling. So, it was not just the tax that bothered them, but also that it was attaching their smuggling business. Speaking of money, be aware that whether the law for how that money is to be made is called “self-government” or “British rule” this is similar to the debate or political decision on how the apples are to be distributed. 

Still, the primary point here is the Stamp Act, March 1765, immediately led to colonial action. In May of that year, Virginia’s Patrick Henry wrote what became known as “The Virginia Resolves” from which the famous “no taxation without representation” derives. During the summer leaders of Massachusetts called for a “Congress” with the leaders of the other colonies. The agenda was to fashion a united response to the Stamp Act. With a second, unwritten agenda item, being to discuss becoming independent of British rule. 

The Stamp Act Congress met in New York City. The congress lasted 18 days from October 7, 1765 through October 25, 1765. Legislatures from 9 of the 13 colonies sent delegates. A total of twenty-seven attendees. Several items came out of the congress. One, for the convenience of non-attending colonists, was a document entitled “Declaration of Rights and Grievances.” It professed their loyalty to the King while listing their grievances. Two, was three petitions that again claimed loyalty but protested the Stamp Act. These were sent to the British King as well as the British legislative Houses of Commons and Lords. A third item to come out of that congress was directly related to the unwritten desire for independence. It officially established the “Committees of Correspondence.” A vehicle for the leaders of each colony to talk to each other about colony items like any dissatisfaction they might have with British rule. Fourth, “No taxation without representation” became popularized. 

In the end the British did indeed repeal the Stamp Act, but more because of on-going protest than the petitions. Further, on the same day they repealed their Stamp Act they published their own Declaration Act affirming their right to tax the colonists. Shortly thereafter the British begin imposing new tax laws. The first series became propagandized by the colonies as the Townshend Acts of 1767. A reference to the royal tax collector based in England. Then in 1770 the British military, called Redcoats, killed colonists up in Boston. That was propagandized as “the Boston Massacre.” In 1774 the British imposed another set of taxes. These taxes were propagandized as “the Coercive Acts.” In response the colonists, as they did with the Stamp Act, decided to call another congress. But this second congress was very different from the Stamp Act Congress.

This congress met in Philadelphia so it would be easier for all the colonies, north and south, to send delegates. Indeed, twelve of the thirteen colonies were represented. Georgia did not send delegates because it was busy with an aboriginal uprising and further using the British for reinforcement. Also, in a further push for unity of the colonies, this congress was called the Continental Congress. However, to really see how different the previous congress was from this one let’s view the following chart. 

 

Stamp Act Congress, 18 days, October 7, 1775-October 25, 1775	Continental Congress, 50 days, September 5, 1774-October 26, 1774
9 of 13 colonies	12 of 13 colonies (Georgia could not be there because they were using the British to help with an aboriginal uprising)
27 Delegates, less than half of them politicians	56 Delegates, about 38 (more than 3/4s) of them politicians
9 merchants, 11 lawyers	2 merchants, 35 lawyers

 

I have already mentioned the difference in number of colonies represented, However, note the more than double of delegates. Then notice the higher number of politicians. Which means the colonial legislatures and most of the governors were openly acting against the British King in sending those delegates. Then note the high number of lawyers. Lawyers make laws. Law is what makes economics viable. Which is logical. Afterall, is not economics what they were really upset about? Then notice the ratio of lawyers to merchants. Merchants care about money, the value, or economics. At 2 to 35 the merchants were relinquishing their role to the lawyers. We call it creating a nation, but they were essentially looking at changing the rules/laws of the game to better fit their business interests. 

Nevertheless, the established agenda was not yet clear on the subject of independence. The congress was fashioning a request for a repeal of the “Coercive Acts.” Like that which occurred with the Stamp Act, and Stamp Act Congress. To that end the congress submitted a new declaration. This one was called Declaration and Resolves to the King of Britain that listed their rights and objections. This document was for the colonists, to support economic measures such as a boycott of British goods. Third, in another act that revealed their self-government position they began organizing militias. The Massachusetts militia was called the Minutemen. Fourth, they agreed to meet again should the British response not be to their satisfaction. 

It didn’t take long. Seven months later, May 10, 1775, the colonial leaders were having their second Continental Congress. This time there was no denying they were at war with Britain. Patrick Henry had given his mockery of slavery speech “give me liberty or give me death,” the battle of Lexington, the battle of Concord, and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga had occurred. Thus, the agenda for this congress was the war effort. Specifically raising an army and designing a nation. This time all the colonies attended. As did all of the biggest names in American restory and founding father lore. Many of the delegates were returnees from the first Continental Congress. This Congress would not end for 13 years, 1788, when two new governments will have been inaugurated. And, thus the number of delegates would shift from an initial 75 to 120. But let’s look at the first new government. 

As to raising an army George Washington was disappointed in the British failure to reward him with rank and/or land for his service in the Ohio Valley. So the delegates/leaders named him Commander of the colonial military.. Few of the delegates/leaders actually went to the battlefield. Instead, they paid the real people to take their place. And, because they, the leaders and their paid representative, what was a rebellion became known as the Revolutionary War. 

As to the other designing a nation aspect of the meeting, by July 1776 a third declaration was drawn up. This one was called the Declaration of Independence, Originally it included words like “life, liberty, and property,” but “property” was a little hypocritical/politically incorrect, so they substituted “happiness”. It included a bell ringing announcement thereof, today known as The Liberty Bell, on the public square. 

The leaders drew up another document that outlined how the colonies were to relate to each other and conduct business. It was basically a governing contract. The original draft of which was called the Articles of Association, but now this one would be entitled the “Articles of Confederation”. The Articles included a judiciary called the Court of Appeals, a Confederate legislative council that included representatives from each of the former colonies now states. Each state had one vote. And, an executive who would be called the President. The first such kind in world restory. 

The design was simple and expediate. By November of 177 it was sent out to the 13 States. Agreement was called ratification. It required all 13 states to sign before it could become law. Ratification took 4 years. The date was March 1, 1781. Meanwhile, the British did not surrender until October of 1781, and the peace treaty was not signed until 1783. 

The leaders new from the beginning the Confederation of the United States, their national design, was flawed. The national government lacked taxing authority and thus the money it needed to conduct itself. Meanwhile, the states had differing forms of currency. The national government lacked a standing military to protect itself. The executive, the President, was just a figurehead who had no power. For example, his ability to represent the 13 states in discussions with other nations was nonexistent. The states were in conflict with each other over trade rights. And, there were still other problems with the design of the new nation. But it was not until after the signing of the peace treaty that they decided to entertain revisions. So of course, there had to be another congress. If only to modify the Articles of Confederation. 

The national legislative body under the Confederation was called the “Congress of the Confederation” so the meeting to repair the Confederation could not be called a “congress.” Instead, this meeting was called a Convention. The national government contract in Britain was called a constitution. So, the leaders of the Confederation called this meeting a “Constitutional Convention.” It would be held in Philadelphia. It begin in May of 1787. Fifty-five Delegates showed up. Rhode Island, was still demanding its individual state’s rights, so it was the only state to not send delegates. George Washington was named President of the meeting. 

It did not take long for the delegates to recognize it would be much easier to simply scrape the Articles of Confederation and draw up a new constitution contract. Ironically, the biggest impediment to the creation of the new contract was the delegates of the states having to agree to allow the new document say that the new national government would be superior to the individual states. The issue of slavery, although the word is never mentioned in the constitution contract, was a close second, but they could simply agree to disagree on that. 

The new second national government design was far different from that of the Articles’. There would be 3 branches as there were with the Articles’, but the similarity ends there. The new judicial branch national court would be called the Supreme Court and hear national questions as well as, if they chose to, questions that were brought to it because they were not resolved by the highest court in the state they originated in. The legislative branch would include two bodies. An upper house called the Senate that would be based on two Senators for every State. And in an agreement with the institution of slavery, a lower house called the House of Representatives based on population. That is, the more populous states would have more Representatives, and the most populous states would always be the states that had slaves because each slave would count as 3/5s of a person. The executive branch, would again be one person, called the President, but he would have real power to negotiate with other nations for the new United States of America, along with other real powers. Like those involving one currency for the nation, not individual currencies for each state, national taxing authority, a national military, and immigration. Concepts all, that would require the states to accept inferior status to the national government. but were important for the organizing principle of law and order. 

In terms of democracy however, as previously discussed “We the people” is a euphemistic way of saying “people like us,” the few, the bold, or simply the eligible to vote. The rules for that had not changed. Therefore, the constitution included, and in some cases continues to this day with the following ways to subvert the public will. The President would be voted on by an even smaller fraction than the already small fraction of people that could vote. That smaller fraction was created to protect slavery, until the political parties hijacked it, and would be called the Electoral College. (see my post Why Is This A Partisan Fight? https://www.facebook.com/citizen.merchant.5/posts/117156053350634) Likewise, regarding the Senate. Before the 17th Amendment (1913), Senators were picked by the individual state legislatures, not the people. Likewise, again, with the members of the House of Representative. They would be chosen by whatever method the individual state legislatures agreed to. Likewise, still again, with the Supreme Court, Justices would be chosen by the executive and only the Senate half of the Congress. 

The name for this kind of government design is “republican-democracy.” Meaning the voters do not vote on the issues, but instead, on the people who they want to vote on the issues. The winners of whom, contrary to the propaganda, get to vote however they want. Which brings us to how the constitution contract was ratified, or what I like to call the piece de resistance. 

The convention opened in late May 1787 and did not end until September 1787. Only thirty-nine of the 55 delegates signed the new constitution contract. A copy of it was sent to each state. Nine States were required to agree to the constitution contract in order for it to be ratified into law. But instead of having the individual state legislatures vote on the constitution contract it was required that each state hold a ratification convention. That is, a meeting outside of the auspices of each state legislature. Wherein any other land-owning white men would be allowed to vote. Not just the legislators. It was a requirement that is more democratic than it would have been if they had not included those people. But democracy was not the reason for the requirement. By requiring individual state conventions, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention would be able to get away from having to ask the individual state legislatures to agree to relinquish some state rights for the new better designed superior national government, while putting the final stamp on our nation becoming a Republican-Democracy at the same time. It was brilliant! 

The following chart most clearly shows what was done.

 

Number	Ratification Date	State	Population 1790 census	Yes	No
1	December 7. 1787	Delaware	59,096	30	0
2	December 12, 1787	Pennsylvania	434,373	46	23
3	December 18, 1787	New Jersey	184,139	38	0
4	January 2, 1788	Georgia	82,548	26	0
5	January 9, 1788	Connecticut	237,946	128	40
6	February 6, 1788	Massachusetts	378,787	187	168
7	April 28, 1788	Maryland	319,728	63	11
8	May 23, 1788	South Carolina	249,073	149	73
9	June 21, 1788	New Hampshire	141,885	57	47
10	June 25, 1788	Virginia	691,737	89	79
11	July 26, 1788	New York	340,120	30	27
12	November 21, 1789	North Carolina	393,751	194	77
13	May 29, 1790	Rhode Island	68,825	34	32
		total	3,929,214	1,071	577

Source: “Ratification Dates and Votes – The U.S. Constitution Online”. USConstitution.net.

 By the time of the first census, 1790, there were 59 thousand people recognized in Delaware. However, ratification came down to 30 votes. There were 434 thousand people recognized in Pennsylvania. However, ratification came down to 69 votes. There were 184 thousand recognized in New Jersey. However, it came down to 38 votes. In other words, a total of 3.9 million people came down to one thousand votes for ratification. 

The convention requirement opened the question up to a few more “people,” so as to get around the criticism of the state legislatures. It achieved the Republican-Democracy wanted, while using the words “We the people” as the opening of your Constitution contract at the same time. What’s not to love? 

It took a year, but with New Hampshire’s ratification, June 21, 1788, the Congress of the Confederation could certify that the new constitution had been ratified. The first federal presidential election was held between December 1788 and January 1789. The Electoral College unanimously voted for George Washington on February 4, 1789. With John Adams coming in second place. The new Constitutional legislatures begin operations in the new capital of New York City on March 4, 1789. On April 6, 1789 there was a joint session of congress to certify that George Washington and John Adams had been elected President and Vice President, respectively. On April 30, 1789 George Washington is inaugurated as the first president of the new national government. 

And the rest is restory.

VIII
Commentary 

Now, that we understand who we are we can discuss becoming a more perfect union.

First, we must reconcile our profit over people national DNA. That is, Christopher Columbus was a merchant marine. The whole Age Of Mercantilism is a reference to merchant marines. And, the motivation for our creation as a nation were the colonial merchants. Accordingly, our profit over people DNA is the reason many of the issues that are constantly debated, like our health care system, or lack thereof, are disingenuous. We don’t take into account our economic system or economic DNA.

Second, we must recognize The Constitution was written while we were under duress. It was a quick fix. Therefore, it was not finished and we need a version 2.0. We hear the Constitution referred to as “a framework” all the time. Therefore, we already know of the need for a version 2.0. Nevertheless, we have not had another “Constitutional Convention.” Our heritage was planned and executed by a small club of 55, all of whom were of the same race, gender, and class, despite which only 39 of whom would agree to sign. We created a Constitution in which all of our civil and human rights complaints are part of our destiny. But more than civil and human rights complaints, we have not reconciled the national form of government name change from a Confederation to a Federal and despite the civil war, in many ways we continue to act as a confederation. (For example, see the pandemic and our inability to unite under a mask mandate vis-à-vis the executive.) Technically only the original 13 states should have any standing relative to States-Rights arguments. Every State formed after the original 13 states is part of the Federal class of our government. A new Constitutional Convention would also offer a great opportunity to drop all the slavery compromises and correct our original sin.