SUPPORTING BRIEF #5: SLAVERY, Page 1
Napoleon Bonaparte
***********************************************************************
William Ellery Channing was born in Newport, R.I. on April 7, 1780. He was a man with deep moral and religious convictions. Reading his works brings out a man who was inspired by God that had fond affection for his fellow human creatures, especially those of the lower classes of society. His writings on the wrongs of slavery are second to none.
The Works of William E. Channing (Boston: American Unitarian Assoc., 1873, 6 Volumes) were, by Acts of Congress in both 1841 and 1843, entered by George G. Channing in the Clerk's office of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The purpose of this brief will be to prove the existence of slavery in America. The slavery that exists today is in a mild form. The only reason I myself see it is because of the painstaking legal and historical research I have done on the subject. The slavery that was introduced in the Colonies in 1620 was introduced abruptly by the King and Parliament of England. It was labor that was to be commanded and despoiled at the rate of 100%. The slavery that exists in America today has been slowly introduced over many years. It is the direct result of the social programs of government. As already seen in SUPPORTING BRIEF #3, social programs create a planned economy, in that, the state planners must invade the economy to accomplish what they believe to be a more equitable redistribution of the national income. The more social programs that are added and the more these programs extend themselves, the more the economy must be planned. Hence the slow process of increasing taxation upon the labor of the people. As already seen, this is what caused Germany's democracy to decay into a totalitarian state under the National Socialists, and yes, the tyrant dictator, Adolf Hitler.
The first of Channings works we will consider are his Remarks on the Life and Character of Napoleon Bonaparte (1827-28) found in Volume I.
-------------------------------Napoleon Bonaparte------------------------------------
Speaking of Napoleon, Channing stated:
"A just estimate of the late Emperor of France seems to us important. That extraordinary man, having operated on the world with unprecedented power during his life, is now influencing it by his character. That character, we apprehend, is not viewed as it should be. The kind of admiration which it inspires, even in free countries, is a bad omen. The greatest crime against society, that of spoiling it of its rights and loading it with chains, still fails to move that deep abhorrence, which is its due; and which, if really felt, would fix on the usurper a brand of indelible infamy.... We war not with the dead. We would resist only what we deem the pernicious influence of the dead." ibid., pg. 71.
Indeed, if we see any resemblance whatsoever in our government that is similar to the rule of Napoleon, should this not sound an alarm? Surely such a political rule as that of Napoleon would be repugnant to the principles of self-government. Channing stated that "Nations have seemed to court aggression and bondage, by their stupid, insane admiration of successful tyrants." ibid., pg. 72.
The great fundamental truth that the laborer has the right to the equivalent of his/her labor has been forgotten and is despised.
"Still, the greatness of the warrior is poor and low compared with the magnanimity of virtue. The martyr to humanity, to freedom, or religion; the unshrinking adherent of despised and deserted truth, who, alone, unsupported, and scorned, with no crowd to infuse into him courage, no variety of objects to draw his thoughts from himself, no opportunity of effort or resistance to rouse and nourish energy, still yields himself calmly, resolutely, with invincible philanthropy, to bear prolonged and exquisite suffering, which one retracting word might remove,- such a man is superior to the warrior, as the tranquil and boundless heavens above us, to the low earth we tread beneath our feet." ibid., pp. 74-75.
Right now, the multitude feels safe in the present economic system. They have their food, housing, entertainment, and so forth. However, let us not forget the economic crisises of the past which have come upon us like a whirlwind. Let us also not be so blind to think that it cannot happen again. A economic crisis that causes a large number of people to become unemployed would create a dangerous situation, in that, many would be willing to even sacrifice liberty for security. Let us also remember that government controls around half the national income today, and the President, pursuant to the Emergency Powers Statutes (93d Congress, 1st Session, Senate Committee Report, Sept., 1973) can, by declaring an emergency, suspend the Constitution and wield the absolute powers of a dictator. As Channing stated: "He saw that the time for usurpation had not yet come to France. To use his own language, 'the fruit was not yet ripe.'" ibid., pg. 78. If there is anything at all that the Congress of the United States could do to remove these awesome powers from the President, they should do so with firm resolve; for power breeds tyrants. The Constitution at Article IV, § 4 specifically grants emergency powers to the President in case of invasion or domestic violence when the legislature cannot be convened. There is absolutely no need for these emergency powers.
"He claimed inspiration, and commission from God, and was anxious to join the character of prophet to that of hero. This was the beginning of the greatest weaknesses and errors into which he was betrayed by that spirit of self-exaggeration, which, under the influence of past success and of unbounded flattery, was already growing into a kind of insanity.... The massacre of Jaffa is universally known. Twelve hundred prisoners, and probably more, who had surrendered themselves to Napoleon, and were apparently admitted to quarter, were two days afterwards marched out of the fort, divided into small bodies, and then deliberately shot, and, in case the musket was not effectual, were despatched by bayonets." ibid., pp. 79-80.
Napoleon gained all of his power through blood and usurpations of power. Channing stated: "The next great event in Bonaparte's history was the usurpation of the supreme power of the state, and the establishment of military despotism over France.... Of all crimes against society, usurpation is the blackest." ibid., pp. 80-81. All of the powers that the President can wield over the people today that go far beyond his constitutionally delegated powers have been gained through usurpation and not by amending the Constitution. This is a great crime against society and a dangerous threat to the liberties of the people.
Going back to the Senate Committee Report on the Emergency Powers Statutes, we read the following excerpt from Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel case found on page 12 of the report.
"Germany, after the First World War, framed the Weimar Constitution, designed to secure her liberties in the Western tradition. However, the President of the Republic, without concurrence of the Reichstag, was empowered temporarily to suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously disturbed or endangered. This proved a temptation to every government, whatever its shade of opinion, and in 13 years suspension of rights was invoked on more than 250 occasions. Finally, Hitler persuaded President Von Hindenburg to suspend all such rights, and they were never restored."
Speaking further on Napoleon, Channing stated:
"We cannot think with patience of one man fastening chains on a whole people, and subjecting millions to his single will; of whole regions overshadowed by the tyranny of a frail being like ourselves. In anguish of spirit we exclaim, How long will an abject world kiss the foot which tramples it? How long shall crime find shelter in its very aggravations of excess?.... Perhaps it may be said, that our indignation seems to light on Napoleon, not so much because he was a despot, as because he became a despot through usurpation; that we seem not to hate tyranny itself, so much as a particular mode of gaining it." ibid., pg. 81.
Despotism, whether it be the rule of one, a few, or many, views the individual as a creature of the state, with no rights other than what the state gives. No inalienable rights can exist under despotism. Any individual, for example, that claims an inalienable right to the fruits of his labor, while being governed under despotism, will be denied those rights. Channing stated:
"It has long enough wrung from the laborer his hard earnings; long enough squandered a nation's wealth on its parasites and minions; long enough warred against the freedom of the mind, and arrested the progress of truth. It has filled dungeons enough with the brave and the good, and shed enough of the blood of patriots. Let its end come. It cannot come too soon." ibid., pg. 82 .
Speaking on the issue of Napoleon and free press, Channing stated:
"Free writing and despotism are such implacable foes, that we hardly think of blaming a tyrant for keeping no terms with the press. He cannot do it. He might as reasonably choose a volcano for the foundation of his throne. Necessity is laid upon him, unless he is in love with ruin, to check the bold and honest expressions of thought. But the necessity is his own choice; and let infamy be that man's portion, who seizes a power which he cannot sustain, but by dooming the mind through a vast empire to slavery, and by turning the press, that great organ of truth, into an instrument of public delusion and debasement." ibid., pg. 86
Today, the public has been, through both the media and the mainstream press, deluded into believing that their government functions constitutionally when, in reality, it does not. Article I, § 1 is being violated, Article I, § 8 is being violated, Article III, § 1 is being violated, Article IV, § 3 is being violated, the 14th Amendment is being violated, the 13th Amendment is being violated, the 10th Amendment is being violated, the 9th Amendment is being violated, the 5th Amendment is being violated, the 4th Amendment is being violated. So much for constitutional government! Also, the people are not told about the voluntary nature of the income tax, even though Chief Justice Warren, in the case of Flora v. U.S. (1960) ruled that "Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not distraint." Each year, both the media and the mainstream press conditions the multitudes to file and pay income tax and hides that there's anything voluntary about it. Sadly, the media and the mainstream press in America today, instead of being the great organs of truth, are organs of delusion and debasement. Our right to labor is silent among them.
Channing continues:
"As another means employed by Bonaparte for giving strength and honor to his government, we may name the grandeur of his public works, which he began in his consulate and continued after his accession to the imperial dignity. These dazzled France, and still impress travellers with admiration. Could we separate these from history, and did no other indication of his character survive, we should undoubtedly honor him with the title of a beneficent sovereign; but, connected as they are, they do little or nothing to change our conceptions of him as an all-grasping, unprincipled usurper." ibid., pg. 90.
This same principle can be applied to the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt. He did great public works in building roads, dams for water power, and so forth. But the fact remains that Roosevelt was an all-grasping, unprincipled usurper. The difference between Roosevelt and Napoleon though are that Roosevelt sought the love and affection of the people; while Napoleon wielded his power over the people through fear. Roosevelt's usurpations of power could have been thwarted by Congress, but the Congress became docile and let him get away with it; while Napoleon's usurpations were outright. Nonetheless, usurpation is usurpation, and the ones who suffer are the people.
"It was however the misery of Bonaparte, a curse brought on him by his crimes, that he could touch nothing without leaving on it the polluting mark of despotism. His usurpation took from him the power of legislating with magnanimity, where his own interest was concerned. He could provide for the administration of justice between man and man, but not between the citizen and the ruler. Political offenses, the very class which ought to be submitted to a jury, were denied that mode of trial. Juries might decide on other criminal questions; but they were not to be permitted to interpose between the despot and the ill-fated subjects, who might fall under his suspicion. These were arraigned before 'special tribunals, invested with a half military character,' the ready ministers of nefarious prosecutions, and only attended to cloak by legal forms the murderous purpose of the tyrant." ibid., pp. 92-93.
Like a spoiled child, Napoleon was determined to have his way. "One of the striking properties of Bonaparte's character was decision, and this, as we have already seen, was perverted, by the spirit of self-exaggeration, into an inflexible stubbornness, which counsel could not enlighten, nor circumstances bend. Having taken the first step, he pressed onward. His purpose he wished others to regard as a law of nature, or a decree of destiny. It must be accomplished. Resistance but strengthened it; and so often had resistance been overborne, that he felt as if his unconquerable will, joined to his matchless intellect, could vanquish all things.... The most luminous exposition of his moral code was given in his counsels to the King of Holland. 'Never forget, that, in the situation to which my political system and the interests of my empire have called you, your first duty is towards ME, your second toward France. All your other duties, even those towards the people whom I have called you to govern, rank after these.'" ibid., pp. 114-15.
Inflexible stubbornness was indeed a trait of Franklin Roosevelt. The historical research I have done shows me that he would stop at nothing to implement his beloved New Deal. Not the advice of counsel, not the rulings of the justices of the Supreme Court dubbed the "nine old men", not even the Constitution would stand in his way. He believed his wisdom transcended the wisdom of the ages, even that of the framers. Nor would he tolerate insubordination in his ranks in the Executive. As the editor of The Saturday Evening Post, George Horace Lorimer put it in his June 20, 1936 editorial entitled "Pussyfooting About the President": "Those whose minds did not meet his have walked the plank, one by one." Indeed, he may well have said to those under him: "Never forget, that, in the situation to which my political system and the interests of my empire have called you, your first duty is towards ME, your second towards the people and the Constitution."
In all fairness to Roosevelt, we must say that he felt his New Deal would bring lasting benefits to the people. However, power blinded him to the fact that he was only flesh. The shift of powers, he could not foresee, would one day heavily burden the labor of the people. Could he have foreseen, that those that came after him would continue to add more social programs to those already implemented under his presidency? Could he have foreseen, that the day would come when the shift of powers to the executive arm would slowly reduce the people to political slavery and rob posterity of any hope of the American Dream? Could he have foreseen, that the 42 American workers required to support one social security beneficiary in 1945 would be reduced to 3.3 in 1995? Was it the intention of Roosevelt to place the people on a path which would lead them to political slavery? If there be any testimony that politicians are human, even those held up as great leaders, Franklin Roosevelt is one of them. It was a grave error for him to usurp unconstitutional powers, for it left a vacuum for a future tyrant to seize enormous powers in a time of crisis.
Remember the viscous attack Roosevelt made upon the Supreme Court in the mid 1930's. Speaking on the subject of judges, Channing stated:
"Whilst politicians expend their zeal on transient interests, which perhaps derive their chief importance from their connexion with a party, it is the province of the Judge to apply those solemn and universal laws of rectitude, on which the security, industry, and prosperity of the individual and the state essentially depend. From his tribunal, as from a sacred oracle, go forth the responsibilities of justice.... The administration of justice in this country, where the Judge, without a guard, without a soldier, without pomp, decides upon the dearest interests of the citizen, trusting chiefly in the moral sentiment of the community for the execution of his decree, is the most beautiful and encouraging aspect, under which our government can be viewed.... Every encroachment on its independence we should resent, and repel, as the chief wrong our country can sustain. Woe, woe to the impious hand, which would shake this most sacred and precious column of the social edifice." ibid., pp. 164-66.
It matters not that the tyrant has not yet reared his ugly head. The fact is that the powers are too tempting to a tyrant, or for that matter, powers so tempting as to create one even out of one holding the presidential office that may be of noble character. 	Channing was indeed a man with the gift of wisdom, however, that wisdom came form his love of God, and that of our Lord Jesus Christ. His love for his downtrodden brethren moved him to use his wisdom to help them understand the world around them, to make them aware of their sacred rights, and to give them warnings to look out for that would endanger such God-given rights.