Declaration Of Ownership - Davis County: Fill & Download for Free

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.It is not that difficult to determine the meaning of these terms as used in the Second Amendment. Though not a scholar, I have some experience in linguistics and textual and historical criticism, so I will give my opinion. It is critical to research how these words were used in a similar context in the historical documents of the time. Though I said it was not difficult to determine the meaning of these words, I did not say it would be simple or short. It takes time to sift through historical documents to see how these words were used during that period, and I provide just a few examples, though there are many more.It is also important to note that the meaning of the words and the meaning of the entire text are different things, though the former has bearing upon the latter. Historical and linguistic context are critical in determining the meaning of the entire text, as we tend to interpret things by the context we know today rather than the historical context in which it was written. We first have to know what the writers of the Constitution were speaking of before we can determine how that applies to legal situations today.The first word is easy. “Arms” as used at the time has basically the same meaning as today: weapons capable of being used for offense or defense. At the time, this referred to muskets, long rifles, pistols, bayonets, sabers, mortars, cannon, etc. and the necessary ammunition. Since cannon and mortars were expensive and not many individuals owned them, they may not have necessarily been included in the intent of the amendment, but they met the definition, and were not excluded. Arms meant weapons, then and now.“Well regulated” is probably the most debated and misunderstood term. Both the terms "well regulated militia" and "well regulated army" and “regulating” the militia were often used at that time, and can be found in the Federalist Papers, the Journals of the Continental Congress and various state constitutions.One example is in the Federalist Papers, no. 29, "Concerning the Militia" (The Federalist Papers):The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.A second is Virginia’s “An Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia” passed by they Virginia Assembly on May 5, 1777, which statedThat a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free stateThe last example is from discussions during the Continental Congress, where the term “well regulated” is so used in reference to the making the American army "a well regulated army" (Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 9, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774);Resolved, As the opinion of this Congress that it is essential to the promotion of discipline in the American army and to reformation of the various abuses which prevail in the different departments, that an appointment be made of inspectors general, agreeable to the practice of the best trained European armies:Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on vigilant and experienced general officers, who are acquainted to whatever relates to the general economy, maneuvers and discipline of a well regulated army.To review from time to time the troops, and to see that every officer and soldier be instructed in the exercise and maneuvers which may be established by the Board of War: that rules of discipline are strictly observed, and that officers command their soldiers properly, and do them justice.These and other documents of the time make it clear that when referring to either the militia or the army, “well regulated" meant a militia or army that was properly organized, equipped, drilled, disciplined, and ready to fight. The term was used in conjunction with outfitting a militia or army, training an army or militia through drilling and instruction to prepare them for battle, and making sure officers were trained in tactics and maneuvers that would enable them to direct the militia in battle. In this context, "well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulation of the sale and distribution of firearms to individuals.That brings us to the third word which the question asked to be defined, “militia.” Again, we want to look at the historical use of the word at the time in the same context. The term militia was used in two ways. The first defined the broad category of people who made up the militia: all able-bodied men, in most instances with defined age limits, such as able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45. If you fit that description you were technically militia. The second use was in referring to an organized body of militia under the control of a state or local government authority. That authority could call up for service the entire militia or a portion thereof.In Colonial America - before the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and US Constitution - towns, counties, and colonies organized the militia for defense. In times of trouble, the militia was called up or activated. For example, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691 gave the royal governor and his officers power totraine instruct Exercise and Governe the Militia there and for the speciall Defence and Safety of Our said Province or Territory to assemble in Martiall Array and put in Warlike posture the Inhabitants of Our said Province or Territory and to lead and Conduct themAlmost a hundred years later at the time of the American Revolution the term militia was used in much the same way, but the government authority under which the militia was organized had changed. As each of the colonies determined that they had the right to govern themselves independently from the British Crown and Parliament, each colony and later each state set up laws governing militias in their constitution or in separate legislation, or both.The Militia Act of 1775 formalized the organization of the militia in Pennsylvania and a few adjacent areas, as the existing groups of militia werevery willing to defend themselves and their Country, and desirous of being formed into regular Bodies for that Purpose, instructed and disciplined under proper Officers, with suitable and legal Authority; representing withal, that unless Measures of this Kind are taken, so as to unite them together, subject them to due Command, and thereby give them Confidence in each other, they cannot assemble to oppose the Enemy, without the utmost Danger of exposing themselves to Confusion and Destruction.The section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights June 12, 1776 addressing the militia had similar language to the Second Amendment, but does not mention the right to bear arms:That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.Subsequently, the Virginia Assembly passed “An Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia” on May 5, 1777. It is a lengthy document fully outlining the makeup and organization of the Virginia militia. The act stated the militia were to beformed into companies of not less than thirty two, nor more than sixty eight. . . and these companies shall again be formed into battalions of not more than one thousand, nor less than five hundred men, if there be so many in the county. . . Each company shall be commanded by a captain, two lieutenants, and an ensign; each battalion by a colonel, lieutenant colonel, and major, who shall take precedence and command of each other according to rank and seniority, and the whole by a county lieutenant. These officers shall be resident within their county, and before they enter on the execution of their office shall, in presence of the court of the same county, take the following oath: I [space] do swear, that I will be faithful and true to the commonwealth of Virginia, of which I profess myself to be a citizen. . .There shall be a private muster of every company once in every month, except the months of January and February, at such convenient time and place as the captain, or next commanding officer, shall appoint, and a general muster in each county, on some day in the months of April and October, in every year, to be appointed by the county lieutenant, or other commanding officerOther state constitutions and documents specifically use the term militia in this manner. In all of these quoted documents and others written at the time, just prior to the writing of Second Amendment, the use of the term militia always referred to a body organized under the authority and command of a duly recognized government. Such militias were to be well regulated: organized, trained, outfitted, prepared for battle, and led by officers answerable to the government. Militias at the time were not activated until a government authority called them into action, usually a state governor, but also local officials. During the American Revolution these local and state militias were called up under various authorities and provided the bulk of the fighting power, particularly until army “regulars” under Congressional control could be outfitted and trained, but also throughout the war.Technically, that completes the answer to the question, which asked merely what these terms meant. However, since the Second Amendment and its meaning are at the heart of the current debate about gun control, and since various self-appointed bodies claiming to be militia are arming themselves today and patrolling the streets, I will extend my answer to talk about the overall meaning of the text.First, since we have just discussed it, note that in the documents of the time the term militia never refers to a band of citizens who take it upon themselves to use armed force apart from the authority of a government body. Though in one sense the term militia was used to define all able-bodied men in a municipality, county, or state, the idea of a group of armed citizens from this pool of men banding together and using armed force apart from a government authority was not entertained as healthy to the peace and security of a state or the nation. In fact, it was the fear of such groups that eventually led to the adoption of the US Constitution. Armed insurrections began to occur in the new nation, the most well known being the 1786–87 Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. This rebellion began in rural Massachusetts as citizens there rebelled against state taxes and bank practices they felt were unfair toward farmers and rural landowners. Though many were sympathetic, state and national officials, including George Washington, became alarmed as a large group of armed citizens through threat of force shut down courts and tax collectors. In historical documents referring to Shay’s rebellion and others incidents, a clear distinction can be seen between a duly appointed militia and an unauthorized band of armed citizens. Participants in Shay’s Rebellion “marched on the federal Springfield Armory (at which weapons were not only manufactured but also stored) in an unsuccessful attempt to seize its weaponry and overthrow the government.” Under the Articles of Confederation, the “federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia.”The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791–94 is another example. It began as farmers in western Pennsylvania refused to pay the federal tax on whiskey, took up arms against federal authority, burned the home of a tax collector, and some threatened to declare independence from the United States. To stem the insurrection, President Washington asked several state governors to call up their militias according to the Militia Acts of 1792. This militia force of over 12,000 was federalized by President Washington to march to western Pennsylvania and put down the insurrection. To show this militia was federally sanctioned, President Washington, the hero of the American Revolution, ceremonially led the militia on horseback for a time as they marched west. The 500 or so armed tax resistors were not considered militia, they were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States.Fries's Rebellion was a similar incident in 1800, and again based on opposition to a federal tax by Congress. In this case, a local group of militia, unauthorized by the state, attempted to detain federal tax collectors. Federal marshals arrested some of the armed group, but later other armed members of the group, under threat of violence, forced their release. President John Adams and Congress used both federal troops and duly authorized state militia to arrest the unauthorized armed group of insurrectionists and bring them to trial in federal court.These incidents make two things quite clear. First, now that the states had become independent and had representative governments, citizens were expected to pay their taxes. Second, unauthorized bands of armed citizens who opposed the laws of the state or federal government by violent means would not be tolerated. In the first incident, under the Articles of Confederation the weak federal government could not act, so duly authorized state militias put down the insurrection.Shay’s Rebellion was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, in which the federal government was strengthened to be better prepared to deal with domestic and foreign threats. In the second two incidents occurring after the Constitution had been adopted, the President of the United States and Congress expected citizens of the United States to pay their federal taxes. This was not taxation without representation, as they were represented in Congress by duly elected officials. If they opposed the tax, they had peaceful and legal means to express their opposition. Again, the President, Congress, state governors, and state governments would not allow groups of armed individuals or an unauthorized group of militia to roam the country and use violence or the threat of force just because they disagreed with the the law. Such groups were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States. The organization of lawful US militia has changed over the years with the passage of several laws, but the basic premise of militias remains the same (see notes at end). The state militias include the National Guard, Naval Militias, and State Defense Forces. All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are considered part of the “unorganized militia” eligible to be called up to serve, but only if current laws concerning compulsory service are changed, either temporarily or permanently.It is both sad and ironic that today unauthorized groups of armed individuals acting apart from any government authority consider themselves patriotic militias and appeal to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers they so revere. By all the official documents and writings of the Founding Fathers, they would have considered these groups dangerous, at best, or illegal, depending on their activities. It is not illegal to form a group to collectively conduct training in firearms or even military tactics. It is illegal for such a group to claim or assert official authority or take military or law enforcement action as a group. The type of law and order envisioned by state and national leaders in the newly formed United States was one that existed through the will of the people as expressed through their elected officials, who were to create local law enforcement and well regulated militias answerable to the government elected by the people. It was the will of the people as they expressed it through duly elected representatives that mattered, not the opinion of a group of people who believed government should function according to their ideas of how it should be run.Let’s now look at the entire Second Amendment and its grammatical construction. As you may know, there were four written versions of the second amendment ratified by various states, the main difference being in capitalization and punctuation. This was not uncommon for that era, as government documents were handwritten, and capitalization, punctuation, and even spelling were not as standardized as they became after type-printed government and legal documents became the norm. In my opinion, these differences did not in any way change the meaning of the amendment as written. This is the version originally approved by Congress for ratification by the states:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Here is one variation, with the first comma omitted, which was the version approved by New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. In my opinion, this is the most “correct” punctuation in that it separates the two main ideas contained in the amendment, and probably the one most used today, but in any case the meaning is the same in all versions.A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.The first part of the amendment is introductory, making a statement supporting the validity of the rest of the amendment. It is easier to distinguish this if you look at it from the interrogative:Q: Why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed?A: Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.Now comes a key definition, not included in the original question: who are “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms? In the context of language used at the time, there are only two possibilities. “The people” is used as a collective term to represent all of the people in a state or the nation. It is also used to allude to the collective will of the people expressed by the government through representatives of the people. The Tenth Amendment makes this distinction:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In the Preamble to the Constitution, “the people” is used in the second sense.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Obviously, all of the people in the United States did not collaborate in the writing of the United States Constitution. Rather, their representatives at the Constitutional Convention entered into debate and discussion to forge and approve the document. It was then ratified by Conventions in each state representing the people of each state.“The people” was used in state constitutions, also. The Virginia Constitution opened with, “A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia.” New York’s Constitution made its declarations, “in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State.” South Carolina’s constitution stated the framers to be Serving as a “full and free representation of the people.” In the Massachusetts constitution you find, “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts” and in Pennsylvania’s “the people of this State.”The people, then, who have this right are the people of the United States, or in each state, and the governments who represent the will of the people. The Tenth Amendment, which was added primarily to allay the fears of anti-Federalists, makes clear what the Constitution and first nine amendments had already established: In matters of individual and states rights, if any branch of the Federal government using its proper authority had not or could not exercise that authority on a matter of governance or individual liberty, state governments had the right to do so, and if the matter had not been acted upon by the state government, the people retained the right to make their own decision, including their right to address a matter through representative government - be it local, state or federal.The Tenth Amendment was patterned after a similar statement in the Articles of Confederation, Article II:Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.That the Second Amendment speaks of both states and “the people” makes sense, as the context of the Second Amendment and the nine other amendments that came to be known as the Bill of Rights was the resolution of the conflict between the Federalists and anti-Federalists over the authority of the federal government over the states, and the principle that all just governments derive their authority from the people. For various reasons, from trade to slavery to fear of centralized power, individual states wanted autonomy on certain matters. Originally, the binding together of the states came about as each colonial government sought to become independent of British rule. The loosely written Articles of Confederation attested to the reluctance to yield power to a central authority. As it became clear the collective United States needed better protection from foreign powers and internal insurrections, a Constitutional Convention was called so “the people” could “form a more perfect Union” between the state governments. The bitter disagreement between Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the different priorities of the states with an economy based on agriculture and slave labor vs the other states, resulted in many compromises, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise.Perhaps the most significant compromise was the addition of the Bill of Rights, which several state Constitutions already had. Federalists who had opposed a bill of rights being in the Constitution now supported it being added by Amendment. It speaks well of those on both sides that these differences were resolved peacefully. That is not to say that the Federalists, anti-Federalists, delegates to the Constitutional Convention, state governors, and state legislators always acted nobly or without self-interest. It does mean that, having just survived a costly war for independence, they valued the peaceful, political resolution of differences over armed conflict. There were a few anti-Federalists who wanted to resist the implementation of the new Constitution by force. However, even the ardent anti-Federalist Patrick Henry refused to take up arms against a government established by the will of the people, and other prominent anti-Federalists agreed. The Constitution was now the law of the land, so compromise was sought to add a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people and the states.I said all that to again emphasize it would be historically inaccurate to think that the Second Amendment was not written in the context of protecting the rights of state governments duly elected by the people. State governors and state legislatures had the right and duty to protect their citizens, and included in that right and duty was the the establishment, organization, and training of a well regulated militia. Standing armies, like those the British had quartered among the people, were suspect. This was the impetus for the Third Amendment:No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.The best way to keep the necessity of a large standing federal army to a minimum was to have organized, well trained, well outfitted, well commanded state militias available. This was also the best way for each state to protect itself, as deploying a federal force to a threatened region could take weeks. In the case of a threat to the entire nation or an overwhelming threat to one or more states, the federal government at the time, specifically the Executive Branch and the President as Commander in Chief, could call up state militias to be put under federal control, as was done in the case of insurrections, including the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries’ Rebellion.What, then, does the Second Amendment have to do with today’s debate about gun control and the right of a citizen to own firearms? Not much. The right of individuals to own firearms was never questioned at the time the Second Amendment was enacted. It was assumed that most people did own firearms. Though of late there has been a debate about the number of households that owned guns at the time of the American Revolution, written records support a high percentage of gun ownership. Probate inventories are one good source, though obviously incomplete since not every estate went through probate, and often the items listed were incomplete. Still, a study was done of “250 estates of farmers with sufficient itemization to list beds in five counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. . . in six, one year samples made between 1714 and 1789. The percentages of guns in probate estates is 60% in the frontier and 50% in more settled regions.” In another comparison of “221 probate inventories in Surry County, a relatively poor agricultural Virginia county, from 1690 to 1715” and where “the staple crops-tobacco and corn-needed to be hoed several times a year” only 34% of estates listed any hoes. However, In the middle income group (30th to 90th percentile), where 35–41% of household estates listed hoes, 63–69% listed guns. Tables were listed at 50-64% and seating furniture at 40-68%. Are we to conclude that only 50% of middle income people had chairs and tables? I think not. More accurately, ownership was transferred without probate or the ownership of these items had been settled apart from probate. The same can be concluded of guns. However you extrapolate it, gun ownership was quite common, probably more common in rural areas but also in urban areas.The second amendment was not specifically about the right of individuals to own firearms. It was about the right of “the people” and their representatives in state and local governments to organize, train, outfit, and maintain militias apart from federal authority. Though many called up to serve in state and local militias used their own firearms, state and local militias also maintained armories in which assorted arms were kept, including canon and mortars but also musket, long rifles, powder, and shot. The Battled of Lexington and Concord began because the colonial militia was alerted that British troops were marching to seize their stores of arms and supplies.Let me restate the significance of the historical context again. The second amendment specifically addressed the right of “the people,” through duly elected state and local governments, to organize, train, outfit, and maintain state and local militias apart from federal control. The second amendment did not address the rights of individuals to own firearms, as that right was already assumed. In my opinion it is wrong for either side of the debate about gun control to deny the historical context in which the Second Amendment was written. It was wrong, in my opinion, for SCOTUS to make any decision about individual gun ownership based solely on the Second Amendment, since the right of individuals to own firearms was already assumed when the Amendment was written. What was in question was the right of “the people” in each state to organize armed militias for their defense apart from the federal government “allowing” them to do so.Here is the larger question: Does this mean the government cannot regulate firearms? No. Absolutely not.Whether you take the position that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of firearms (as SCOTUS ruled in some instances) or that this right was assumed, that does not mean the government does not have the right to regulate firearms or the conditions under which this right can be exercised. Constitutionally, in order to protect the rights of all citizens, all rights have limitations. Freedom of speech does not mean you can intentionally attempt to persuade a crowd to commit illegal or violent acts. In the case of inciting criminal or violent action, protecting the public takes precedent over free speech.Also, the Federal, State, and local governments have always asserted the right to regulate arms among citizens, which is why you cannot buy an RPG launcher or fully automatic weapon at Walmart, and why there are restrictions on sawed-off shotguns and .50 caliber machine guns. The state of Arkansas had laws making it illegal to carry Certain firearms since 1838.Carrying a weapon has been proscribed in Arkansas since 1838. The earliest version of the law against carrying weapon barred carrying “any pistol, dirk, butcher or large knife, or a sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey.” The penalty was one to six months in the county jail and a fine of $25 to $100.Univ. of Arkansas Taff v. StateOver the course of your other weapons were added, but the statute was never challenged on Second Amendment grounds in court. It remained valid until “In the 2019 legislative session, both houses of the Arkansas General Assembly passed resolutions declaring that Arkansas is a constitutional-carry state in light of the Arkansas Court of Appeals’ 2018 decision in Taff v. State” - a case that never mentioned Second Amendment tights, but rather sought to exclude confiscated drugs and a confiscated handgun based on illegal seizure.Another such long was passed in reconstruction Texas in 1870, after the the radical reformist Governor Edmund Davis, appealed to the state legislature because of high violent crime rates in TexasThat summer, the state legislature partially fulfilled Governor Da- vis's request by passing a law forbidding the carrying of any "bowie- knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six shooter, gun or pistol of any kind," at a variety of locations:any church or religious assembly, any school room or other place where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes, or into a ball room, social party or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen, or to any election precinct on the day or days of any election . . . or to any other place where people may be assembled to muster or to perform any other public duty, or any other public assembly.”The fine for violating the new law was a whopping $50 to $500 (the modern equivalent of $1,000 to $10,000).Texas A&M Law ReviewOf course, these were state laws.The Federal Government’s first forays into gun control were 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, and the 1968 Gun Control Act. There was no uproar in the 1930s when the federal government regulated the purchase of machine guns. The Thompson submachine gun, or Tommy Gun, had become the favorite weapon of organized crime and was perceived as a threat to the public. None of these laws were ever see as unconstitutional or intrusive by the general public, and in United States v. Miller the law was upheld. Neither were any of these laws intended to question the right of citizens to own firearms. Rather, they dealt with regulating certain types of firearms that presented a significant threat to the general public, and regulating the conditions under which citizens could exercise their rights. The basic rules guiding regulations were:Do such firearms present a threat to the general population?Is there a legitimate reason a citizen might need such firearms?The SCOTUS decision in U.S. vs. Miller is an example, though in my opinion a little too brief and narrow (United States v. Miller).By now, I may have succeeded in upsetting people on both sides of the gun control debate. I also suspect that there are a good number of people who don’t care because, to them, the argument is not about gun ownership, but about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to protect the public. Most Americans are not members of unauthorized, pseudo-patriotic militias and stockpiling weapons and ammunition to fend off their own government, which in their conspiracy-laden mind is out to get them. Most Americans are not preparing to fight a race war, survive the apocalypse, fight off the Antichrist and his minions, or fight off the zombies. Most Americans are not opposed to universal background checks or firearms registration. Most Americans do not want guns to be confiscated, which is why every piece of legislation to date proposing restricting assault style weapons has contained a grandfather clause, allowing current owners to keep their rifles. Sadly, “most Americans” are not controlling the debate over gun control. The most extreme elements on each side are.Footnote: The organization of lawful US militia has changed over the years with the passage of several laws.Militia (United States) - Wikipedia10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classesMilitia Act of 1903National Defense Act of 1916National Defense Act of 1920I welcome comments by people who disagree with me. I don’t have time for trolls or arguments. Also, if you want to know my opinion on gun control, I suggest you read the following answers.Tom Buczkowski's answer to If the United States banned guns, how many gun owners would rather fight to the death than surrender their guns?Tom Buczkowski's answer to As an American gun owner, would you fight back if law enforcement came to confiscate your firearms?

If you want an answer, I can give you one. If you want the truth, I can provide that as well. I prefer telling the truth. The “Great Experiment” was never about integrating Black people with White people. The Great Experiment was the infiltration of Puritans and Jesuit Roman Catholics of European descent, and Freemasons, who also were found to be various European descents. After exploration of the territory, it would become a member as the Vatican and the British Crown, a city unto a city.To do that ships were the only means of travel for European explorers, travelers, and anybody else seeking a new life in the new world. People had been coming here since the mid-1500s, soon after Christopher Columbus alerted the world of what he discovered, which wasn’t America. On these ships were goods and commodities ripe for procurement and consumption.Ships would become the most important mean of transport for people once settlements by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Irish, and Portuguese would find their way here. These ships were filled with as well Puritans, Jesuit Roman Catholics, and Freemasons – all intent on claiming swaths of the region.Many were involved in the establishment of the country and the early wars fought to claim ownership. The British won out over everybody else and stayed in rulership for 107 years. It would be much later during the late 19th century, commerce would flourish and give birth to the nation as a whole with the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the eventual signing of the US Constitution. Yet, for almost 300 years the idea of forming a nation of corporations never left the intentions.Once people relied on the goods and services brought to them by the British, including the slaves, it was never implied or even discussed to designate corporations as “persons,” because they were not people or human beings.I refer you to the US Supreme Court case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which began as a case about the refusal of a railroad (corporation) to pay taxes assessed by a California county for its franchise, roadways, roadbeds, fences and rolling stock, which felt its 14th Amendment right of equal protection rights were violated. The Court did not explicitly discuss the 14th Amendment in its opinion, basing its decision on the invalidity of the tax assessment. In the statement of facts of the case, the Court set out the 14th Amendment claims of the railroad, but the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the treatment received on the railroad by the state. It would be the clerk (J. Bancroft Davis), who summarized the case and added inadvertently a headnote stating, “the Court ruled corporations are persons within…the 14th Amendment, Section 1.” Justice Field saw the Davis erroneous summary and wrote a few years later in another opinion that “corporations are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It was so held in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad.” This case would resolve in 1888The false precedent in the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case would be used by a US Supreme Court in the early 20th century famously for striking down numerous erroneous regulation, including federal child labor laws, zoning laws, and wage and hour laws. In cases like Plessey v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the intended beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment. Between 1868 when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and 312 cases on the rights of corporations.The feat of deceitful magic of the Southern Pacific Railroad and its wily legal team (see Roscoe Conklin), with the help of an audacious Supreme court Justice (Justice Field) created the opportunity to land upon the 14th Amendment to be more of a defense for the rights of businesses than the rights of nonwhite people. The history of corporate personhood is now very much alive and thriving.Your question was an excellent one, and I apologize for delaying a quick response, but this is my answer. The country was an experiment to make it a corporation, and it was founded on principles buried in freemason intent, thought, and magic.

The Day Manchester United Was Saved By The Dog – A Tale From Early YearsManchester United Football Club, as on today, is one of the most recognizable brands in the world, a team whose popularity extends to the farthest and most remote corners of the globe, a modern-day sporting behemoth. But little do the majority of their millions of supporters know that it all could have been very different had it not been for some canine intervention over a century ago and Manchester, like Newcastle, could so easily have ended up being a city with one football club.Indeed, if ever a roll call is taken of all great individuals whose peerless efforts and telling contributions have made Manchester United the global icon that it is today, a place must be reserved alongside the likes of Busby, Charlton, Best, Ferguson, et al, for a nondescript little St. Bernard dog named Major. In fact had it not been for Major, none of those much more illustrious names would have had any role to play with Manchester United in the first place.But for all the efforts of Major, Manchester United would surely have ended up with a plight similar to those of 19th century football clubs such as New Brighton Tower, Ashford United, and Burton Swifts, none of which ever made it out of infancy. In order to grasp the significance of the occasion, a trip needs to be taken over a century of years back in time to the humble origins of Manchester United Football Club.The world’s most famous football club was launched in 1878 as Newton Heath L&YR (Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway) FC by a band of railway workers wanting to partake in some Saturday afternoon physical activities. During its nascent years the club participated in matches against other railway works teams in the northwest of England. The Heathens, as they were commonly known back then, won their first trophy of real consequence when they lifted the Manchester Cup in 1886 by defeating Manchester F.C. in the final. Soon it became evident that Newton Heath was ready to leave behind their amateur days and ready to take the leap into the realms of profession football.In 1889, the club applied to join the Football Leagues, established back in 1882, but was unfortunately denied acceptance. Undeterred, Newton Heath proceeded to sign up for the nationwide league, under the auspices of Football Alliance, which served as the stepping stone to the Football League. After continuing to impress in the Football Alliance for three consecutive seasons, the club was finally accepted into the Football League in 1892.Newton Heath kick-started their existence in the Football League on 3rd September, 1892 with a visit to the mighty Blackburn Rovers, a founding member of the League. Even after falling behind by 3 goals early on in the match, Heathens fought back and ultimately came away with an honourable 4-3 defeat. The rest of the season was dotted with a few memorable results such as the 10-1 demolition of Wolverhampton Wanderers (which apart from being United’s first ever league victory is also, astonishingly, their biggest till date) and 7-1 thrashing of Derby County.The season as a whole though, panned out in despairing manner as the Heathen finished their inaugural league campaign rooted to the bottom of the table. They managed to avoid relegation that season by the virtue of defeating second division champions Small Heath (precursor of modern-day Birmingham City) in what was termed those days as Test Match. Heathens’ second league campaign turned out to be even grimmer. After finding themselves at the bottom of the table yet again, Heathens were pitted against Liverpool in the Test Match. This time, however, there was no escape. A 2-0 defeat condemned Newton Heath to second division.The remaining part of the last decade of the century saw Newton Heath firmly established as a mid-table second division team flirting with promotion on rare occasions. Back then the club used to play their home games at Bank Street, a ground characterized by its shocking playing surface, which was wretched even by relatively low standards of those days. On top of it, the stadium was located adjacent to a factory, which spewed pungent smoke and mists of steam over the spectators and players. Soon enough, the ground garnered notorious reputation among the opponents and there were even numerous instances matches being called off due to unsuitable playing conditions.At the turn of the century though, the team’s continuous failure to secure promotion and the dodgy playing ground seemed to be of much lesser concern to Newton Heath as compared to the parlous state of club’s finances. The fledgling club seemed to be unable to cope with spiraling administrative costs especially with the limited gate receipts at 2nd division level to cover it. The situation became precarious when the club’s own president, William Healey, requested the court to issue a winding-up order for the £242 owed to him. The club’s total debt amounted to £2,500 and with no benefactor in sight, the court declared the club bankrupt. The gates of Bank Street were accordingly locked and the club stared into certain extinction. It is at their most perilous juncture did the club find their two great saviours – captain Harry Stafford and his St. Bernard, Major.Harry Stafford, a boiler-maker by profession, was the club’s skipper and long-serving full back. He, more so than any other player, cared deeply about the club’s well-being and even before the crisis had hit, used to send his dog around the Bank Street ground on match-days to collect donations to run the club. After the winding-up order was issued, Stafford was instrumental in keeping the club afloat. He begged and borrowed enough money in the ensuing days to arrange for club’s next game away to Bristol City. However, for the club to save itself from oblivion, much greater investment was required and quick. For this purpose, a four-day fund-raising event was held in Manchester and Stafford’s dog, Major, was a showpiece attraction in it.The legend goes that at the end of the fourth day the dog ran away and entered into a pub in which John Henry Davis, owner of a flourishing local brewery, was present. Davis’ daughter took fancy to the dog and enquired about its ownership. Finally when the dog was tracked back to Stafford, did Davies get to meet the club captain. It was such sheer happenstance that led to perhaps the most momentous meeting in the history of Manchester United. Stafford convinced Davies to invest in the bankrupt club, clear off its debt and provide the much-needed financial stability. Under Davies’ ownership the club soon changed its name to the now famous Manchester United Football Club and assumed a new identity.The club was finally ready to announce itself to world. The generation of Ernest Mangnall , Charlie Roberts, 1909 Cup victory, league titles and the magnificent new stadium named Old Trafford was ushered in. Even though there had been inevitable swings in the club’s fortune with the passage of time, the club has never had to endure those darkest days of 1902. The fact that it survived through that shambolic period is largely down to the resourceful acts of a dog to which the club and its legion of supporter’s shall forever remain indebted.Read more: The Day Manchester United Was Saved By The Dog – A Tale From Early Years