History Unhinged: All Hail... the Pope? Part One

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Government / History 
____________________________________

What if everything taught in school left out key points in the history of America? The history of the world? 

In this two part article, which the full version is linked to at Source, we learn the origins of British and Vatican influence in America. 

Part One 

1. Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?
ANSWER:There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

2. What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623-New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624-New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled: “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

3. Who owned the colonies?
ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]

4. Did each colony have its own form of government?
ANSWER:Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies. In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution. [SOURCE: WBE]

5. Did the colonies have laws?
ANSWER:The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government. Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders. The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade. [SOURCE: WBE]

6. Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
ANSWER:No. Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7. What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations. They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules. All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours. Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8. Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’ As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”

“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees. In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9. Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
ANSWER: No. The definition found in Burke onConciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

10. Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
ANSWER:No. The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213. The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO: The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown. The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]

“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope. He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11. Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER:The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise. The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.

12. What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?
ANSWER:The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available. It remains in power to this day. It states:

QUOTE:“The King’s Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope–“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring,not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him;binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.” [END QUOTE]
End of Part 1

Source: A Nation Beguiled

Monroe Doctrine (1823)

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Government / History
___________________________________

Do you know the Monroe Doctrine? And, is it still being employed by the United States?

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' sphere of interest.

The speech given to Congress by President Monroe, December 2, 1823:

. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .

Source: Our Documents, Transcript, Document Image