February 21, 2013


Filed under: news — jaspar @ 9:49 am










02 21 13 Superpower Death Watch




































“It is imperative…to recognize how much is taken for granted when theoretical questions are *not* posed.”


–Howard Winant. *The New Politics of Race: Globalism, Difference, Justice.*  Minneapolois: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.  Page 220 (Note 4).






So let us compare and contrast the role of The State in the processes of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Great Basin region of the United States and in Australia.






Sir Henry Parkes, G.C.M.G.

[Knight Grand Cross, The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George]

[Excerpt from “The Federation Conference In Melbourne, 10th February, 1890”]

[Page 191]

Now, I have had occasion to point out the accusation against me that I had not fairly outlined the Government which I for one would wish to see built up here [in Australia].  That accusation I think I have fairly disposed of by quoting a passage from the first letter I wrote on the subject.  But I heard somebody, I think it was a prominent member interrupt me when I spoke of an Australian union having a privy council.  “We want no privy council” the interruption was.  It seems to me that that interruption clearly shows how little some hon. [honourable] gentlemen have thought on the subject.  “We want no privy council,” said the voice.  I shall proceed now to show that we do want this Privy Council.  (Hear, hear.)

The Privy Council of England is the greatest embodiment of the executive power that I suppose is known in the world.  It has grown up by a system of development through a thousand years, *from the time when the members of the council were the mere tools of the sovereign, until a time when they are the real advisers of the sovereign*.  (Hear, hear.)

It has been developed into perhaps the most superior Executive Council in the world. I am going to show –


and I think it is worth my while to be at this trouble– *the difference* between the residence of the executive power in such a body as the Privy Council, of which our [Australian colonies’] executive councils are imperfect imitations, and the depository of the executive power in a single great officer, as in the United States of America.

Now, I hold in my hand a book published by a well-known lawyer [Henry C. Lockwood], a member of the New York bar; and I need not tell hon [honourable] gentlemen that some of the most distinguished lawyers of the United States are members of that great bar.  The title of the book is “The Abolition of the President” [published in NY in 1884].  That will show that the question of the unwise arrangement of the exercise of the executive authority in the United States has not escaped attention and discussion.

In the first section, of the second article of that great document, the Constitution of the United States of America, the executive power is vested *absolutely* in the President of the United States; not vested with the advice of any body, but absolutely in the President of the United States.  I am going to show this House how that power has been used, notably in the case of two presidents who reigned supreme in the United States each for eight years –I mean President Jackson and President Grant.  I have had occasion on former opportunities to point out how *the really great men who framed the Constitution of the United States were largely guided by the type of the English Government in the arbitrary days of George III.*  Close observers, close investigators, of the institutions of America have pointed this out time after time: that *the model before those illustrious men was the Government of Britain at its worst epoch, in the arbitrary days of George III.*

This writer [Lockwood] has this passage on the subject:

“That which stands out——

I am only quoting for the purpose of drawing a contrast between the means devised in England for the exercise of the executive power and the means devised in the United States for the same object.

The writer of this book says:

[Page 194]

“That which stands out more prominently than anything in American history is *the great similarity of our fundamental law with the ancient and obsolete theories of the Constitution of Great Britain.* The veto power of the President is no exception to this rule.

“The power of the two Houses of Parliament to frame laws was presumed to be held in check by the king’s negative, which could always be interposed to prevent the adoption of an unwise or unnecessary statute. Again, the arbitrary exercise of the king’s right of veto was itself restrained by the power which Parliament possessed of refusing a grant of supplies [tax and expenditure acts] for the service of the Crown.

“The Presidents of the United States have vetoed more than one hundred bills.

“The Crown in England has not vetoed a measure passed by the Legislature since the reign of Queen Anne [8 March 1702 1 May 1707], nor have the House of Commons withheld supplies from the Crown since the Revolution of 1688.  Yet, in free America, both of the powers are exercised to-day, and the present Congress is hurling its anathemas against the President, who, in his turn, replies by veto after veto (1879).

“Congress proclaims that it will withhold the supplies if the President vetoes its measures.  He does veto them, nevertheless.  Here is conflict, antagonism.  Who is going to yield?  One must do so, or anarchy will ensue.  Although the ancient theory of the veto was abandoned in England, it has survived with us.  It was specifically introduced into our law. All of the Presidents since Jackson have regularly exercised it.  Since the foundation of the Government, the veto power has been exercised by the Presidents of the United States about one hundred times.”

Well, now contrast the conditions in the two nations.  The Bills which are carefully passed through the two Houses of Congress have in a hundred instances been vetoed by the Chief Magistrate in power; Bills similarly passed in England, never since the days of Queen Anne!  Now, I am going to show how this veto power has been used in the United States, my object being to draw *sharper attention* to the wisdom of creating a Privy Council for Australia. I am particularly anxious that hon. [honourable] members should hear this part of my case, because *it cannot well be understood without close attention*.  General Jackson, who had two terms in the Presidential Chair –that is, for eight years he was a despotic sovereign, *more* despotic than any sovereign of Europe.

Mr. J. P. ABBOTT: It was the people who made him!

Sir Henry Parkes: No doubt.  General Jackson in one of his veto messages to Congress, laid down this doctrine; remember, I am quoting from the message of the President conveying his veto on one of their Bills.  He says:

“Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”

Daniel Webster among others strongly condemned the President, and thus spoke of it at the time:

“The general adoption of the sentiments expressed in this sentence would dissolve our Government.  It would raise every man’s private opinion into a standard for his own conduct; and there certainly is, there can be no government, where every man is to judge for himself of his own rights and his own obligations.  Where every one is his own arbiter, *force, and not law*, is the governing power.  He may judge for himself, must execute his own decisions; and *this is the law of force*.  I confess, sir, it strikes me with astonishment that so wild, so disorganising a sentiment, should be uttered by a president of the United States.”

Now, President Jackson, who, as I have just stated, was not only elected to the Presidency, but re-elected for another term of four years, did many things as arbitrary as this, and he was the sole depository of the executive power of the United States.

I now come to General Grant. General Grant was a man of a very different type, of a very different character. I admit that I am one of those who have a warm admiration for his great qualitities

[Page 196]

as a soldier and a patriot.

But General Grant did some things which nobody can possibly defend; and I only allude to them to show how, *in the best of men, this lodgment of sole power is sure to run into riot and abuse*.

This is what Mr. David Dudley Field, the great jurist, said of the conduct of General Grant:

“Under colour of his office alone, without any treaty or Act of Congress, or any judicial process, he seized and delivered up to Spain a Spanish subject who had sought shelter on our shores; and under colour of protecting a State against domestic violence, he turned out one Legislature, and put in another, in three of the States.” General Grant actually, by an armed force, turned out the elected members of the Legislature and put another body of men in their places.  That was *the effect* of having the executive power of a State lodged in the hands of one man.

Charles Sumner, speaking also of General Grant, used these words:

“The President, without warning, precipitated upon the country an ill-considered scheme for the annexation of a portion of the island of San Domingo, in pursuance of a treaty negotiated by an aide-de-camp.  Reluctant senators were subdued to its support, while treading under foot the Constitution in one of its most distinctive republican principles.  The President *seized the war-power of the nation*, instituted foreign intervention, and capped the climax of usurpation, by menace of violence to the black Republic of Haiti.”

Now, I think these instances of how the executive power is used by the President of the great Republic, are quite sufficient to warn us, or to warn the men who are intrusted with the solemn and sacred duty of framing this [Australasian] Constitution, from taking any similar course of vesting the executive power of the State in the hands of one man.  Hence, then it seems to me that the interruption which has drawn from me these references to the President’s power –it seems to me that the interruption of, “We want no Privy Council” was ill-considered, ill-timed, and was an expression of opinion which men, in their sober moments, would not adopt.

The highest provision in the machinery of a free State is to secure, under wholesome restraints and keen responsibilities, the exercise of the executive power.  In all States whatever, the executive arm of Government is the most important, and it cannot be left out: it must be in existence.  The power must reside somewhere.

In an autocracy, of course, it resides in the autocrat, and is exercised by his sovereign will; and it is little short of that, as I think I have proved, in the case of the Presidential Government of the United States, *which cannot be fairly called a republic*.

But under our [current English] form of Government, this power, whether in the [English] Privy Council or in the Executive Council of one of these great [Australian] Colonies, can only be exercised by the advice of men who are responsible for all advice they give; and I do not know how human wisdom can contrive any safer depository for the executive power of a free State.  I therefore say that my outline which I gave on the 30th October last, namely, that there should be, under a [English] Governor-General, a Privy Council and a Federal Parliament, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives –is a fair outline of a Constitution.




Note: The England Parkes knew began to disappear after World War I.  After World War II all that was left was Poodle UK.






“Sir Henry Parkes…(27 May 1815


27 April 1896) was a statesman and politician who is considered the Father of the Australian Federation.”













In 1844, the great question before the country was the annexation of Texas.  The Whigs opposed it, believing that the Democrats wished thereby to extend the slave-power. Political excitement was at fever heat.  In that contest the Democrats elected their leader, James K. Polk, and Henry Clay’s hope for the Presidency was forever lost.  On the 4th of July, 1845, the Texan Legislature ratified the act of annexation, which had been passed at the close of Tyler’s administration, and the Lone Star took its place in the Union constellation.  In 1836, the Texans had gained their independence from Mexico, and they claimed that it carried the Province of Coahuila, making the Rio Grande the separating line and not the Nueces.






[ NB !














The Mexican Government would not accede to the position taken by Texas, which had now become a part of the United States.  The President asserted that the boundary line was the Rio Grande, and took arbitrary measures to possess that disputed territory.  “Polk is just as responsible as Tyler for the choice of a method of annexation which, according to the opinion of the first jurists in the country, of a large minority of the House of Representatives, and of the majority of the people and the Senate, was unconstitutional.”  Congress had passed a resolution, to the effect that it consented that the territory *properly included within, and rightfully belonging to*, the Republic of Texas, might be created into a new State, subject to the adjustment by the Government of all questions of boundary that might arise with other Governments.  The President took no notice of this law, providing for an adjustment of the boundary with Mexico, but proceeded to decide the question himself, and to make use of the army and navy, as he had already done, to carry out his personal will.  He marched his troops into the territory of Coahuila, and found the enemy naturally ready to defend their soil.  Then, because the Mexicans were there found upon their own territory, the President declared that that condition of things constituted war.  He took all these steps before Congress had a chance to express itself at all. The Constitution says, that Congress alone shall have the power to declare war.  President Polk thought differently.  After the war was once declared, the people were called upon to carry it on, wherever the troops of the United States were ordered by the President.  The resolution provided that the Government of the United states should adjust the question of boundary, and President Polk claimed by some process best known to himself, that he had become the Government.  Louis XIV thought the same thing.  The President went on in his course, and instructed Commodore Connor, commanding the Gulf squadron, that, in the event of Mexico declaring war, to take possession of Tampico, while Commodore Sloat, who commanded the Pacific fleet, was to take San Francisco and other ports.  Of course, the rest was easy.  The troops were then ordered to march into the territory of Mexico; they met with resistance, and the President formally declared that war existed between the two countries.  It has been said of Polk, that he played a double game against England and Mexico; against England the strong, a warlike policy, with sword in the scabbard; against weak Mexico, a peace policy with a drawn sword.  That is, the President blustered towards England when he meant peace,




[ “


The Oregon Treaty…is a treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States that was signed on June 15, 1846, in Washington, D.C.”






















and talked peace to Mexico when he meant war.  He said that he would not declare war against Mexico unless she first made war, but he nevertheless sought a conflict and declared war himself.  Mr. Garrett Davis addressed the House on the subject of the Mexican war on the 14th of May, 1846, as follows:


“But I do not intend that this consideration, or any other, shall divert me from full and free inquiry how. and by what authority, this war was begun. And if I establish, as I have no doubt I will, that it was undertaken and commenced by the President during the present session of Congress, in disregard, and by the usurpation, of the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to make war, I will speak my censure of such bold abuse of power in the strongest terms that I can command. In taking this course, I will manifest anything else than unfriendliness to my own country, or sympathy for her enemies.  James K. Polk is not the gallant army, which he has precipitated into needless carnage and peril.  He is not the Government, which is the Constitution executed rightfully, administered in all its powers by the appropriate departments and officers.  He is not the country, but President as he is, only a small part, an atom of it.  Clothed with a little brief and fugitive authority, he has used that with the purposes of an usurper, in sport of the lives of his countrymen, and in the destruction of the peace of nations; his condemnation becomes the highest of all duties, and the member of Congress who ‘cries aloud and spares not’ is much to be preferred to him who, from blind zeal of a partisan, or the venality of a tool of power, shouts ‘Caesar can do no wrong,’ or to him who from any motive whatever can stifle the indignant reprobation with which every freeman’s soul must heave upon such an occasion. * * * * I charge and arraign James K. Polk with having, as President of the United Stated, during the present session, usurped the power of Congress by making war upon Mexico, a nation with whom the United States were at peace. * * * * * We were at peace with Mexico, and yet it was into this portion of her territory that Mr. Polk, by his own mere will, ordered an American army to march, forcibly to subvert the jurisdiction of Mexico, and to erect upon its overthrow that of the United States.




“Such invasion, in either state of the case, is not defence, but aggressive war; and this power the Constitution in no case whatever vests in the President, but solely and exclusively in the representatives of the States, and of the people in Congress assembled.  When our territory is actually invaded, I have conceded what all men know, that the Constitution and the laws authorize him, and make it his duty to repel it with the military and naval forces of the country.  His power stops there, and he can undertake no offensive operations whatever without the authority of Congress.  This limitation upon the President is one of the Constitutional bulwarks of popular liberty; when it is overthrown, the fall of the citadel is inevitable, and despotism rises upon its ruins.”




Thus the evidence is cumulated that an American President, who was endowed with extraordinary power as the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, was not content, but proceeded to declare war, and to direct the invasion of a neighboring nation.  The war was continued, and the sympathies of the nation went out to the gallant army which had invaded Mexico, that thickly inhabited country, abounding in natural fortresses.  The glory of Buena Vista, Palo Alto, and Chapultepec, shed its lustre around the administration of Polk.  The territory of the United States was greatly enlarged.  Gold was discovered in California. The people soon forgot the despotic acts of the President, and he, unjust as it may seem to us to-day, reaped the benefit of his own unconstitutional course.  The people looked to the central head, and ascribed to him all the credit and the glory of successful war.  If that war ever was necessary, it might have been carried to the same successful termination without the instrumentality of personal Government.  Any belief in contravention of this last assertion is but one of the political superstitions of the past, which the people of a representative Government should have long ago outgrown.












Pages 150 – 154 of “Administrations Of Van Buren, Tyler, And Polk.” In: Henry C. Lockwood. *The abolition of the presidency*.  Lexington KY: ULAN Press, 2013.


Footnotes omitted.










The 1884 original:
























Ned Blackhawk. *Violence over the Land: Indians And Empires In The Early American West.* Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.






“…throughout the 1830s joint Navajo-Ute depredations fell upon the [New Mexican] province.”  P 129.




“[O/a 1837]…’A prominent Mexican officer [Don Juan Andres Archuleta] was scourged…by a party of Yutas’ for unspecified reasons.  Archuleta’s humiliation elicited no immediate response from Santa Fe….”  P 130.




“In September 1844, only months after Archuleta’s most recent campaign against the Navajos, several bands of Utes arrived at Albiquiu demanding a meeting with the governor [Mariano Martinez].”  P 131.




“…’discussions…led to angry words and a fist fight in the governor’s office … According to his own account, Martinez fought the Utes off with a chair … The Utes fled town amidst gunfire, leaving some of their number dead and dying in the streets where their bodies remained unburied for at least a week.’  On their way out of town, Ute warriors sacked settlements along the northern Rio Grande and then returned north to spread word of the governor’s treachery.”  P 131.




“Utes knew that New Mexican retaliations would come, as they did in the summer of 1845, when General Archuleta’s organized militia of over 1,000 chased Utes as far north as the Arkansas [River], which savvy Ute leaders retreated across in order to move into ‘foreign’ U.S. territory.”    


P 186: 55 pages later!




In 1846 U.S. troops took over Santa Fe (p 191); in 1847 the Taos Uprising (01 19 1847 – 07 09 1847) was suppressed.  Its “violent suppression [by U.S. troops]…also revealed  the amount of force that could be brought to bear against insubordinates” (ibid).




The Utes became puppets.  Their “neutrality” became betrayal of other tribes.  In March 1849 U.S. troops killed Utes, captured Utes; and destroyed 50 Ute lodges with all their provisions.  The Utes still alive fled helter skelter through the snow  (P 193).








In 1850 “Peace” had become “a precondition for diplomatic relations” (p 191): the first congressionally ratified peace treaty between Utes and The State (p 195).




























America died




AUGUST 6, 1945




while giving birth to








which immediately began writing –in blood– its










Asterisks indicate my emphasis.



















Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: