Category Archives: Other

The Historical Precedent of Subjugating Through Starvation

 

“Happy Thanksgiving! We Are Halfway To Being Starved Into Submission”

Why Is DHS Buying Up All the Food? Is This the Last Thanksgiving?

About Dave Hodges

Dave is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show
Website: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/
DaveHodges has written 80 articles so far, you can find them below.

I sincerely hope your family has a blessed Thanksgiving, complete with all the turkey, stuffing, and pumpkin pie that you could eat. May you enjoy fellowship with those who are dearest to you.

If you are one of the remaining Americans who has enough to eat, count your blessings! We Americans may not have many Thanksgivings left to celebrate under the Red, White, and Blue.

Disturbing Developments

In recent years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been regionalizing disaster supplies and rapidly procuring hundreds of millions of ready-to-eat meals, blankets, and body bags. Combined with the DHS’s suspiciously massive purchases of ammunition, one has to ask why the Feds are doing this.

In fact, the government has been buying so many supplies and in such large amounts that shortages have affected the world’s leading manufacturers to the point they’ve been forced to suspend shipments to retail customers of survival foods and ammunition.

Why is the Obama administration engaged in this behavior? There can only be one answer. This administration intends to use food as a weapon in order to force compliance in the coming marital law which will be perpetrated by a series of false flag terror attacks similar to what just occurred in Paris.

Obama does not have far to go bring America to its knees when it comes to food vulnerability. America is already in a great deal of danger as a result of food shortages, which are manifesting in certain segments of our society.

A Nation of Plenty, Sort of….

As you prepared your feast, did you think about the fact that we in America throw away more food than many countries have an opportunity to eat? As you pulled your chair up to your Thanksgiving table, did you think about the fact that half the world goes to bed hungry? America has its shame in this area, as well.

Since the end of WWII, most Americans have been blessed with plenty to eat—so much so, that we simply take our overflowing of Thanksgiving blessings for granted.

If you think an 800 number begging you to feed a hungry child is going to appear, you would be mistaken. However, there are people, who have power over us who would like to make this the last Thanksgiving that America will celebrate as a Constitutional Republic. And, to some extent, America is extremely vulnerable to being starved into submission by the bankers as a means of political control. As your family has the Thanksgiving football games on TV today and you are bombarded by messages of “love your veterans” and aren’t we lucky to live in a land with such blessings, please consider the message of the picture contained in this graphic, or note the statistic listed below in relation to our land of plenty.

“Happy Thanksgiving! We Are Halfway To Being Starved Into Submission”

A Global Awakening

Brzezinski, one of the most hated and well-known globalists, recently lamented that there is a global awakening to the source of the tyranny on this planet and that “they” must accelerate their timetable for the completion of a global takeover. And the full-court press has subsequently been placed on humanity, as we are under assault in ways never witnessed before.

One of the most popular methods of subjugation has to do with controlling who eats and who dies. Historically, food has been one of the most effective tools of subjugation.

Today, as we contemplate our good fortune with our full plates and full bellies, wouldn’t it be ironic if we had to contemplate a future where millions were kept on the edge of starvation as a means of political control? Of course, this could never happen in America, could it? Few people know that seven million Americans starved to death during the Great Depression in what could be called the Great American Holodomor.

The Historical Precedent of Subjugating Through Starvation

 

The lessons of history clearly demonstrate that dictatorial regimes, whether they be Socialists, Communists, or Marxists, will not hesitate to use food as a weapon against their own people in order to solidify power and impose absolute autocratic control. Food can be withheld from the masses by preventing it from being grown and harvested, by contaminating it and rendering it unfit for human consumption, or by simply preventing food from being distributed to a targeted population.

The two most notable examples of dictators using food as a weapon in order to destroy the free will of their people comes from the regimes of Stalin and Hitler.

Josef Stalin engaged in his own Soviet-style Holocaust when, in 1932 and 1933, an estimated six to 20 million people in the Ukraine died from starvation when Stalin implemented his prescription of “hope and change” policies, in order to eliminate the Ukrainians’ desire for becoming their own nation-state.

Upon assuming power, the Stalinist Communist regime rapidly nationalized the food industry and forced all of the region’s farms into collectives. Thus, Stalin’s version of the Holocaust came to fruition in what history has dubbed the “Holdomor,” in which millions perished in a two year period when the Soviet government began to exterminate the Ukrainian population by taking control of food and food production.

Hitler proclaimed that food could be used as a tool “…to discipline the masses,” and he did not hesitate to use the control of food as a type of carrot and stick in which he would reward accomplishment and punish failure, as well as to ferment preferential class distinctions in which his armed forces received the largest food ration cards. Skilled workers who were engaged in industries critical to the building of the German war machine received food ration cards that were slightly less in value. And, finally, the prisoners and the Jews received the lowest-valued Nazi food ration cards. Food ration cards were also utilized as incentives to increase industrial production and were also increased in value when productive Nazi workers would be promoted. Food ration cards were diminished in value for the failure to meet Nazi production goals. Hitler’s use of what psychologists refer to as classical conditioning techniques reduced the will of the German population to a pack of Pavlovian dogs who were conditioned to be totally dependent upon the government for their survival. WITH OVER 50 MILLION AMERICANS ON FOOD STAMPS, UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE POTENTIAL FOR HISTORY TO REPEAT ITSELF IS INDEED REAL!

Most recently, Somalia thug Farah Aideed systematically starved his people into submission as a brutal civil war raged in both Darfur and Rwanda, where the Islamic regimes sought the annihilation of ‘infidels’, and the use of food was one of the primary weapons designed to force compliance. And, of course, Pol Pot, Castro, and Mao all used food deprivation to quarantine their political opposition and to exact absolute allegiance to their respective dictatorial regimes.

It is safe to say that the aforementioned dictators did not rule over countries that enjoyed a Thanksgiving feast similar to what you and I are enjoying today. 

The US Government and Its Mass Starvation Policies

The use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.

In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.

In November, 1975, President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200, outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in LDC countries through birth control, war, and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan, and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.

NSSM 200 formally raised the question, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Kissinger answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs, and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters.”

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy, and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order 13603 (EO), National Defense Resources Preparedness, is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended targets are not the LDCs but, instead, the American people; and after Obama declares martial law, food will undoubtedly be used to subjugate the more resistant regions of our country.

Could Obama Become the Next Stalin?

The potential for the extreme events in Ferguson to spread across the country are real. If the country were to go into martial law lockdown, would food be used by this administration to control the population?

On the surface, it seems unlikely that any US president would ever starve any segment of the American people to death. However, when one considers the implications of Obama’s EO 13603, there can be no doubt that Obama would not hesitate to make this Thanksgiving the last Thanksgiving—if not, why else would Obama have created the executive order.

Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO states:

e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

This unconstitutional EO is particularly disturbing in that it clearly states that the government has control over anything that is “capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…”  If you thought that you and your loyal dog, Fido, were going to get through the coming food crisis by storing and consuming dog food, think again.

How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment, and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic President or the next power-hungry President?

The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry, and even the very food in your cabinets, as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be redistributed.

Planned Starvation in Modern Day America

Were you scratching your head in bewilderment as you watched, a couple of years back, on the news, as the Amish had their farms raided, raw milk producers were jailed, and the kids running lemonade stands were shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production.

The cleverest aspect of this EO is that no Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., false flag event) is needed as a pretense to seize food and imperil survivability. Section 201(b) of the Obama EO clearly states that this EO is enforceable under both “emergency and non-emergency conditions.”

Conclusion

In an interesting footnote in history, Hitler used the Jews as forced labor as he systematically starved them to death in several of the labor death camps. What is to prevent REX 84 or PDD 51 from being carried out on American soil? After all, EO 13603 calls for civilian conscription, under the Department of the Labor, without compensation!

Is Obama setting the table to take his place among Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, and Mao as another despot in the long line of tyrannical leaders who would grant themselves the authority to subjugate the masses by using food as a weapon after declaring martial law? Americans desperately need to look at history in order to understand what happens every time the people of a government allows the government to control its food supplies and farms.

I sincerely hope that you will enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner, because if Obama does decide to implement EO 13603, today’s Thanksgiving dinner could become known as “The Last Thanksgiving Dinner.”

Source

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/why-is-dhs-buying-up-all-the-food-is-this-the-last-thanksgiving/#io4Cwbf0y2rdcOkA.99

Widow sues attorney after husband commits suicide

 

By Adam Beam | AP June 10

PRESTONSBURG, Ky. — The Social Security Administration told Leroy Burchett and some 900 others like him in Kentucky and West Virginia last month that their disability benefits were being cut off because they were tied to an attorney suspected of fraud.

His wife said he then stopped taking his antidepressants and shot and killed himself less than two weeks later, on June 1. Now she’s suing that attorney who represented him, Eric Conn, blaming Conn for her husband’s death.

“If he hadn’t got that letter and hadn’t been losing his medical insurance this never would have happened,” Burchett’s widow, Emma, told The Associated Press, weeping as she recounted her husband’s final days. “He just wasn’t that kind of person. I mean, heck yeah we had problems, everybody has problems. But not like that.”

The wrongful death lawsuit filed Wednesday targets Conn, who represented all 900 of those people whose benefits were temporarily cut off. The agency restored those benefits June 4, at least until the recipients had a chance to plead their case in court. He has been investigated on accusations of fraud before, though he has never been charged with a crime and has denied any wrongdoing.

Conn bills himself as “Mr. Social Security” and estimates he handles roughly 60 percent of disability claims in this part of Appalachia where many depend on government benefits because of the coal industry’s decline and little else in the way of job opportunities. The parking lot of Conn’s office displays small-scale replicas of the Lincoln Memorial and the Statue of Liberty, and billboards urge potential clients to call 232-HURT.

He is the target of a whistle-blower lawsuit in federal court brought by two former Social Security Administration employees. The federal government declined to prosecute Conn in that case, according to his attorney, Kent Wicker. But the letters sent by the Social Security Administration told Burchett and others their benefits were suspended because “there is reason to believe fraud or similar fault” was involved with evidence submitted by Conn and his office.

Conn’s attorneys instead blamed the Social Security Administration for suspending the benefits without a hearing. And they blamed the publicity surrounding the suspension for creating a panic.

“Let me emphasize once again how sorry Mr. Conn is … for the people who have been victimized. But they were victimized by the Social Security Administration and not by Eric Conn,” said Joseph Lambert, one of Conn’s attorneys and a former chief justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. “One wonders if the publicity and the somewhat overwrought rhetoric may have had something to do with Mr. Burchett’s decision.”

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, declined to comment about the lawsuit but said “the agency is saddened by Mr. Burchett’s death and his family remains in our thoughts.”

More than 8 percent of residents in Kentucky and West Virginia draw disability checks, among the highest rates in the nation. More than a quarter — 56,000 — of the nearly 194,000 people in Kentucky’s 5th Congressional District are considered disabled workers, according to the Social Security Administration. In Floyd County alone, more than 11 percent of the population receives disability benefits.

Leroy Burchett, was a furniture delivery truck driver when he met Emma, a part-time clerk at a Double Quick convenience store. He wooed her without saying a word, simply stopping in the store frequently and putting a pack of gum on the counter.

They were married for 14 years and had two children together. Emma Burchett, 45, said her 41-year-old husband had worked manual labor since he was old enough to push a lawn mower. He was plagued by chronic pain, culminating in several surgeries to have metal plates installed in his neck and back. He was granted disability about six years ago with Conn’s help.

“It was our main source of income,” Emma Burchett said.

Emma Burchett said she stopped working after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and black lung disease, an ailment caused by exposure to coal dust that mostly affects coal miners. She has never worked in a coal mine but has lived near one for years.

When the letter from the Social Security Administration arrived, Emma Burchett said she panicked, but her husband was even worse off. Afraid that he was losing access to his medication, including two antidepressants, he quit taking them.

“If he was even late taking it, he would get confused in his head,” she said.

She urged him to keep taking them, telling him she would lower his dosage to help his supply last longer until they could get everything straightened out.

But on June 1, Emma Burchett said her husband told her he “couldn’t take it anymore” before shooting himself. The next day, she discovered he hadn’t been taking his medication. The pill bottles were still full.

___

Correspondent Claire Galofaro contributed to this report from Richmond, Ky.

CONTINUE READING…

Beginning American History Clarified

First published in January 2014

 

1557675_653410114705843_96238415_n

January 22, 2014 at 12:28am

Written by:  Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears

mary

Though many believe that America is an independent Country or that the U.S. is an independent Nation this couldn’t be farther from the truth despite our 4th of July Celebration of Independence Day hi{story}.

WHILE YOU ARE READING THIS ARTICLE, “LISTEN TO THIS”:  http://privatis.me/images/audio/2013.12.12.privatis.me.51.Claim.Divine.Proportion.Details.mp3

Christopher Columbus delivered penal colonies = out cast of convicts and prisoners consisting of murderers and rapists… to the New Nation, because the Crown had divorced them.

How many of us understand or know that part of the story? This is one reason why that they had no problems with killing American Natives to take what they wanted.

While we have been taught that the founding fathers were here to divorce Great Britain… Nice twist isn’t it?

We were told the Boston Tea Party was about freeing us from Taxation with out representation handed down by the Crown through Imports also. Although we are now Double Taxed all the way to the grave through the Crown.

So how did this happen?

You should ask the Vatican.

You say you do not know what I am talking about… “through the Crown”?

I mean D.C. = District of Columbia as in British Columbia = the Crown.

It is all just an extension of, not independent of the “City of London” who owns the Crown which was established as an extension of the first corporation which was the Church of Rome

{the all seeing eye on the top of the Pyramid on the Dollar Bill}

which incorporated Pharaohs, Jesuits, Pagans… into so called Christians.

Of course the Crusades = the longest bloodiest war in history was being fought during that time of this incorporation.

Speaking of war, what about the battle our founders fought for independence?

War is expensive for some and profitable for others. As many of us have come to figure this  out,  so did they.

Which was right about the time they decided they needed one more Revolution, an Industrial one.

Once again, they disguised it, marketed it, and sold it as defending Freedom and basic Human Rights. Promising to Free the Slaves.

They made way for everyone including them = the newly freed slaves to become enslaved = YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE = U.S. CITIZENSHIP = DEATH on paper = CORPORATIONS = YOUR NAME TYPED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS = CAPITAL = YOU INCORPORATED = PROPERTY or STOCK for the MARKET = COLLATERAL/SECURITY = SOCIAL SECURITY for the Nation’s War Debts….

This new STOCK also allowed those in Leadership to BORROW money from the Crown needed to rebuild the White House that had been burnt down by their Invading Troops.  This means they were no longer Independent of the Crown. As if they ever really were.

According to Congress which is the opposite of “progress”, they have been operating under a state of emergency every since = Martial Law.

File:DunmoresProclamation.jpg

As America has operated in a state of Incorporation with Great Britain = the Crown or the “City of London” every since as the “Corporation United States of America”.

This is just some of how U.S. Leaders have managed to Pass Unconstitutional Amendments and “BAR” the Constitution from the Court Room and why Judges wear black.

They know Dead Men/Wo/men = STOCK have no rights.

Attorney’s and Lawyers swear an Oath to the BAR which stands for “British Accreditation Registry” and that the BENCH = BANK in Latin.

Of coarse the Constitution contained a Trojan Horse that allowed all this to happen to begin with.

Let’s not forget that it established a Republic Nation which is an extension of Rome = Athens.

Before it was written America’s Leaders operated as a Federalist Republic. Which had nothing to do with the so called current Republic or Democracy.

It would be more accurate today to say that America is an Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Plutocracy and that it is just one block in the Pyramid of Corporate Government built by the

Corporate Church of Rome. Each Corporation since is only an extension of the First.

DON’T BELIEVE ME = DO THE RESEARCH

A FEW PLACES TO START YOUR RESEARCH

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000200.html

The rise of the prisoner trade:

From the time of Christopher Columbus, prisoners of various kinds figured in the exploration and colonization of the New World. Spain and Great Britain (among others) sent convicts to help settle North America; they also seized some indigenous peoples (Indians) to use as slaves. Starting with Portugal in the early sixteenth century, the major western European powers also imported African men, women, and children to serve as slaves in the Caribbean and American colonies.

http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000045895/
Columbus a known criminal

In 1488 he was invited by the king of Portugal, his “especial friend”, to return to that country, and was assured of protection against arrest or proceedings of any kind (March 20): he had probably made fresh overtures to King João shortly before; and in the autumn of 1488 we find him in Lisbon, conferring with his brother Bartholomew and laying plans for the future. We have no record of the final negotiations of Columbus.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000200.html

The rise of the prisoner trade

From the time of Christopher Columbus, prisoners of various kinds figured in the exploration and colonization of the New World. Spain and Great Britain (among others) sent convicts to help settle North America; they also seized some indigenous peoples (Indians) to use as slaves. Starting with Portugal in the early sixteenth century, the major western European powers also imported African men, women, and children to serve as slaves in the Caribbean and American colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29
The Penal Colony of Georgia
Georgia was founded in 1732 by James Oglethorpe as a trustee colony and was named for King George II of Great Britain. Oglethorpe and a group of associates, many of whom had previously served with him on a prison reform committee, petitioned in 1730 to form the Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in America. The petition was finally approved in 1732, and the first group of colonists, led by Oglethorpe, departed for the New World in November.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=016/llac016.db&recNum=494
The Practice of Penal Colonization Continues
the later part of the resolution, which proposes the removal of such persons as are dangerous to the peace of society, may be understood as compromising many to whom the preceding member does not apply.  Whether the Legislature intended to give it a more extensive import, or rather, whether it contemplated removing from the country any but culprits who were condemned to suffer death, I will not undertake to decide. But if the more enlarge construction of the resolution is deemed the true one it furnishes, in my opinion, a strong additional motive why the Legislature, is disposing of this great concern, should command an alternative of places. 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=016/llac016.db&recNum=495
Under consent of Great Britain
Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the United States, to form a receptacle for these people ?
On our northern boundary, the country not occupied by British subjects is the of the Indian Nations, who’s title would have to be extinguished, with the consent of Great Britain, and the new settlers would be British subjects. 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=016/llac016.db&recNum=496
In Compliance
,in compliance with the resolution on the 31st of December last, relative to purchases of lands without limits of the State, to which persons obnoxious to it laws or dangerous to the peace of peace of society may be removed.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331629.shtml
The Boston Tea Party
It turns out the Boston Tea Party wasn’t about tax increases at all. It came about because a crony of the Crown, the East India Company, got a tax cut on its tea in the Tea Act of 1773, and this put all other small merchants at a disadvantage.The East India Company got its way because it was so huge and powerful.
The early history of the times
We learned that the Pilgrims arrived in America in 1620 on a boat named the Mayflower, but few of us know that they’d chartered the boat from the East India Company, the world’s largest and most powerful multinational corporation. The Mayflower, in fact, had already make the crossing between England to North America three times when the Pilgrims chartered it.
The East India Company was most responsible for the rise of England from a weak still-feudal state in the late 1500s to an international powerhouse by the mid-1600s. The Company was Queen Elizabeth I’s second attempt to use a corporation to catch up with the other European seafaring powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
In 1767, to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies.[12] To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies.[13] Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

Double taxation within the United States

Double taxation can also happen within a single country. This typically happens when subnational jurisdictions have taxation powers, and jurisdictions have competing claims. In the United States a person may legally have only a single domicile. However, when a person dies different states may each claim that the person was domiciled in that state. Intangible personal property may then be taxed by each state making a claim. In the absence of specific laws prohibiting multiple taxation, and as long as the total of taxes does not exceed 100% of the value of the tangible personal property, the courts will allow such multiple taxation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
History of the Corporation

The word “corporation” derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a “body of people.” By the time of Justinian (reigned 527–565), Roman Law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names universitas, corpus or collegium. These included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor.[10]

Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[11] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporation
The Corporation United States
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/07US-Govt-and-4081FC.pdf
Articles of Incorporation

In important ways, the Civil War settled key unresolved issues that had existed since

American independence. While the “peculiar institution” of slavery died along with (at least) 618,000 men on both sides of this great conflict, new and remarkable changes emerged from the ashes and gore. The most important of these was the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The four authors in the materials that follow have attempted to convey the momentous changes this amendment brought to the subsequent political development of the United States. Dr. Wesley Phelan explains the how the Supreme Court has used the Fourteenth Amendment to gradually—and selectively—incorporate the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to actions by state and local governments.

http://www.constitutionalcannabis.com/legalize–legal-lies.html
DUNS Numbers of the US Corporate Government
and Most of Its Major Agencies

United States Government-052714196
US Department of Defense (DOD)-030421397
US Department of the Treasury-026661067
US Department of Justice (DOJ)-011669674
US Department of State-026276622
US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-Office of the Secretary-112463521
US Department of Education-944419592,…

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greecevsrome/ss/GreecevsRome_7.htm

Basics on Government in Greece and Rome

Originally, kings ruled Athens; then an oligarchy (rule by the few), and then democracy (voting by the citizens). City-states joined together to form leagues that came into conflict, weakening Greece and leading to its conquest by the Macedonian kings and later, the Roman Empire.

Kings also originally governed Rome. Then Rome, observing what was happening elsewhere in the world, eliminated them. It established a mixed Republican form of government, combining elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy, In time, rule by one returned to Rome, but in a new, initially, constitutionally sanctioned form that we know as Roman emperors. The Roman Empire split apart, and, in the West, eventually reverted to small kingdoms. [See Herodotus on monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens
Athens is one of the oldest named cities in the world, having been continuously inhabited for at least 7000 years. Situated in southern Europe, Athens became the leading city of Ancient Greece in the first millennium BC and its cultural achievements during the 5th century BC laid the foundations of western civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse
Athens Greece and their Trojan Horse
The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greeks entered and destroyed the city of Troy, decisively ending the war.

http://friend7of7god.tripod.com/pharaohChrist.htm
Pharisees – priests of God knowledgeable in the resurrection of the dead, angels:
Pharisees perhaps real meaning is – Pharaoh-seers (pharaoh = palace/temple, seers = prophets) – knowledgeable in the religion of the Pharaohs. Paul proclaims Christianity is a Pharisees religion – Acts 23:6.

http://www.thematrixhasyou.org/13th-amendment/13th-amendment-secret-oath.html

BAR stands for British Accreditation Registry
The British Legal System Of Mixed Common And Roman Law Has Been Used To Enslave The USA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government#Forms_of_government

The dialectical forms of government

Main article: Plato’s five regimes
The Classical Greek philosopher Plato discusses five types of regimes. They are aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Plato also assigns a man to each of these regimes to illustrate what they stand for. The tyrannical man would represent tyranny for example. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with aristocracy at the top and tyranny at the bottom.
In Republic, while Plato spends much time having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and Adeimantus “in speech”, the discussion eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).

WATCH

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_12.htm
The Secret Rulers of The World
The source of most if not all our woes, revealed (from the present to the past): Connecting the dots through ~3000 years of revisionist human history, spanning from the time of the pharaohs, all the way up to the present dynasties creating the New World Order, in a quest to perfect the enslavement of mankind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yz15gr_L7s

5. The Secret Rulers of the World – Vatican Hoarding (5of29)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b2-7QWx-44

Jordan Maxwell Real America 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uDMk16iBiA

Jordan Maxwell Real America 2 of 2

http://privatis.me/images/audio/2013.12.12.privatis.me.51.Claim.Divine.Proportion.Details.mp3

Claim Your Divine Proportion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LA-S64QY3o

Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKG59NUdn8A&list=FLUDSpde0WW6_gZaK7_ckKiQ&index=199

REVEALED: The Secret of Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LE-0yC2u4&list=FLUDSpde0WW6_gZaK7_ckKiQ&index=211

Recovering American Must See Video

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/llac_browse.html

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates

Annals of Congress:  List of Page Headings

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greecevsrome/ss/GreecevsRome_7.htm

http://www.thematrixhasyou.org/13th-amendment/13th-amendment-secret-oath.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_12.htm

http://www.constitutionalcannabis.com/legalize–legal-lies.html

*Edited by Sheree Krider

The following is a true copy of a Facebook Conversation which took place July 17, 2014 between Former IMF Attorney Karen Hudes and Judge Anna von Reitz. Read it and decide for yourselves what you think:

David Andrew Bryson

The following is a true copy of a Facebook Conversation which took place July 17, 2014 between Former IMF Attorney Karen Hudes and Judge Anna von Reitz. Read it and decide for yourselves what you think:

Anna von Reitz:

Karen, I am sure that your intentions are 100% good and that your reasoning is sound — however, the Chinese are not the only ones coming to breakfast. The American States and the American State Citizens are OWED a great deal that is not being factored in that I can see, and your contention that there is a “statute of limitations” goes down the drain when you realize that what we are dealing with is FRAUD and there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

Karen Hudes:

Beg your pardon? Whose side are you on? You want to hand back the world’s gold or you want it to be for the benefit of humanity?

There was no fraud involved in the Global Debt Facility.

The fraud is that the Banking Cabal bought up all the media and then tried to provide inferior education and dumbed everyone down to keep them stupid, so that they would make stupid comments

Anna von Reitz:

No, Karen, the fraud is that the corporation doing business as the United States of America (Inc.) — a governmental services company owned and operated by the Federal Reserve — “redefined” us as foreign situs trusts owned and operated under our own Names. They grossly abused the rights of usufruct to do this and created “States” and Americans on paper that they then “Pledged” as sureties backing the debts of the already bankrupt United States of America, Inc.

The further fraud is that FDR then signed over both the debts and the assets of the United States of America, Inc. to the IMF, which glutted itself on the lucrative service contracts via yet another governmental services corporation doing business as the UNITED STATES (INC.)

The World Bank, IBRD (International Bank of Reconstruction and Development), and Federal Reserve were ALL creditors in the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc., but the primary creditors were the hapless American people and their organic states. Although the 1934 Bankruptcy Act recognizes THEM as the Priority Creditors, the IMF never bothered to inform them or operate in an honest or appropriate fashion with regard to their material interests.

Instead, the IMF dba the UNITED STATES, INC. and the Bankruptcy Trustee chosen by the World Bank, IBRD, and Federal Reserve — the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico — siezed upon all the assets supposedly represented by the foreign situs trusts that the FDR “administration” created and rolled them over into Roman Inferior Trusts — Cestui Qui Vie Trusts, Karen. You are a lawyer. You should be familiar with what those are? Trusts formed when a person “disappears” for a prolonged period of time and their estate is seized and probated and distributed to heirs assigned by the court?

These Roman Inferior Trusts were all operated under our NAMES — e.g. JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC, and they were all “removed” to Puerto Rico for “safe keeping” by the Bankruptcy Trustee —thereby bringing American State assets and the private property assets of American State Citizens under Puerto Rican jurisdiction.

All these years the IMF, an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, and its spin off governmental services corporation dba UNITED STATES, INC. has been plundering the assets of The United States Trust (1789) and a good portion of that gold that you are so generously and eagerly handing out to everyone belongs to us as well as the Chinese who are already wolfing down the Strawberries and French Toast.

You can either investigate this for yourself — or you can tell your friends at the IBRD and the IMF that it isn’t going to wash because you already know the facts and are acting as a teflon sugar coat for them.

But you had better stop and reconsider if you think that I am stupid, dumbed down, uninformed, or making specious comments.

Karen Hudes:

But the USA had nothing to do with the sequestration of the world’s gold. In retaliation the CIA overthrew Marcos and then tried to kidnap him. The only ones who are now “coming to breakfast” are the crooks — and they have been unceremoniously shown the door, and so will each and every other crook who comes knocking.

I am no sugar coat teflon and you must be a shill for trying to undermine me. I am no longer having anything to do with you.

Anna von Reitz:

Time for me to beg pardon — President Eisenhower did this, but the US had nothing to do with the sequestration? Where do you think all this massive amount of gold came from? It’s a hoard that has been amassed by plundering and murdering the people of this planet for hundreds of years. This whole truth in banking effort started with Basel I, II, and III because the US has been cooking the books for three generations! — but the US has nothing to do with this? The Chinese came to the US District Court in New York and filed suit because not only had “we” not paid them back their gold, “we” hadn’t even paid the interest on it — but the US had nothing to do with any of the gold sequestered?

And then there is the question of where did all the gold confiscated by the Roosevelt Administration go, along with the 8000 tons that once were kept in Fort Knox? If you check out Ron Paul’s website you will see an amazing video — the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve admitted to him (finally) that the gold is gone and they don’t know where it went. All that just “evaporated” under the care of Bill Clinton? We’ve been breathing gold plated oxygen all these years and didn’t know it? Or is it closer to the truth that once the IMF dba UNITED STATES, INC. had the keys to the car, they seized and transported the gold wherever they chose to put it? Maybe the Phillippines? Maybe the Maldives?

And what about the 5700 tons of gold that has been surreptitiously shipped to China over the course of the past twenty years, all clearly shown on the FT-900’s? And, while we are at it, where is Germany’s 3,396 tons of gold that were entrusted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but which have suddenly vanished and can’t be repaid except in dribs and drabs over the next however many centuries? Eh? The US has nothing to do with the stockpiles of gold suddenly showing up and just as suddenly gone missing?

It was less than three years ago that Lord Brown rocked the world by noticing that hey, these numbers don’t match…..these numbers indicate that there is a lot more gold in the world than we ever imagined…..and while he shortly thereafter ended up dead, Lord Snowden famously blustered, that there’s only “1,500 tones of gold that has ever been mined in the history of the world” —and yet, here you are, with a certificate from 1934 that this unimaginable amount of gold was sitting safe and snug in the vault of the New York Federal Reserve — but the US has nothing to do with the sequestration of the gold hoard, nor anything with the gold contained therein?

Most of all, I want to know what happens to Mom and Pop American, whose lands and homes and businesses have been put at risk, who have been driven like cattle, enslaved, robbed, defrauded, threatened, and misrepresented by their EMPLOYEES for eighty years? When do they get their day in court and the interest and profit that is due from their risks and labors and miseries? When do they receive back the titles of their private property and the assets of their organic States free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or debts created by false beneficiaries?

Karen, I very much respect you, but I fear that you have yourself fallen victim to the oldest Crown Temple trick in the world. You appear to be thinking and believing that the FED is bad and the IMF and IBRD and World Bank are pure. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to end the evil, then simply returning to the gold standard and announcing a Jubilee isn’t the way to do it. If you want to end it once and for all, then the evil of ALL the banks involved MUST be recognized and the Federal Reserve and the IMF must BOTH pay the piper!

The IBRD and the World Bank were in this from the very beginning, too, and though they didn’t play the prima donna role of the BIS, they have plenty of culpability and explaining to do. They knew all this crap was going on and sat mum and let it roll — as you yourself can attest.

Now I am going on sixty years old and I have lived a lot of places and done a lot of things at a very high level and I will tell you frankly that I don’t believe in fairy godmothers or Mystery Saviors. I believe in human beings who either try to do the right thing or do not.

So if you don’t mind, take a look around from where you are sitting and see if you can answer some of my questions? Especially the really important ones — like when do the American States and the American State Citizens get relief? When does the IMF turn over control of our property to us? When does it release all the land and property titles it has held and bonded and invested and profited from under color of law for the past seventy years? When do Americans receive back their own ESTATES free and clear with no more funky pretensions that they “voluntarily” removed themselves to Puerto Rico and agreed to all this abuse? Gold is just gold, Karen. It was chosen as a medium of exchange because of its durability and relative uselessness. You can’t eat it, drink it, or use it for much of anything else. It’s just a symbol, not really much different or better than the paper “certificates” bankers have used to represent it in ages past. The real wealth of the world is in labor and in natural resources, and those are what have been stolen and plundered in America — eighty years of labor, eighty years of human enslavement, and the entire continent plundered for eight decades. Not to mention the value of all the American lives lost in wars for profit. Those things aren’t fungible in gold, Karen. Those things are quite different and more important in value.

So while the IMF and the IBRD and the World Bank and everyone else involved in this hideous fraud scandal are busily making nice by distributing all this gold that Mr. Struck just happened to have sitting around in a vault doing nothing since 1934 — and nobody can explain where all the American or German gold went — you will have to pause a moment and consider that, uh, Karen — these people you are working for are telling us a fairytale. We know that. You should know that. Oh, there may be piles and piles and piles of gold — yes, that is sure enough. It was implied at the time that our grandparent’s gold was confiscated (and never repaid) by the Roosevelt Administration that the same corrupt and evil governmental “services” company would turn around one day and use the gold it stole from us to launch a brand new gold-backed currency market.

Yes, as far back as 1934, Congressman Louis T. McFadden said as much, and here we are.

Still no accounting for where the American gold went, then or now. No accounting for where the Chinese Nationalist gold went, then or now. No accounting for where the German gold went, then or now. Still no action to release the American ESTATES back to the Americans they belong to. Still no action to release all the color of law titles taken against our organic states.

Karen, Karen, Karen — you are a SMART woman, a good woman. Think about what I am saying here. The important thing isn’t the gold. The important thing is the land and the people. And there isn’t a “good guy” bank or group of banks versus a “bad guy” bank or group of banks — that’s all just for show. They’ve all colluded to a greater or a lesser extent ever since World War II!!! This entire circumstance would not be possible otherwise. And any idea that people are going to just take the trinkets and blankets, and sell Manhattan, needs to be put to rest.

Once and for all time, please, tell the rotters and plotters that the American State Citizens demand to be free again and to have their lands and homes and businesses back in their own control, and to have the profit due and owed to them, and to have their Equity Contract honored and to receive the governmental services they contracted for and paid for — and if these terms are NOT met, then there IS no deal and no amount of pretty coins scattered in the streets will make it right.”

David Andrew Bryson

David Weigand

CONTINUE READING….

All Saints’ Day / Halloween

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All Saints’ Day

All-Saints.jpg

Painting by Fra Angelico

Also called
All Hallows

Observed by
Catholic Church,
Eastern Orthodoxy,
Anglican Communion,
Lutheranism[1]
and Methodism,[2]
among other Christian denominations

Liturgical Color
White

Type
Christian

Observances
Church services

Date
1 November (Western Christianity)
Sunday after Pentecost (Eastern Christianity)

Frequency
annual

Related to
Hallowe’en
All Souls’ Day
Day of the Dead
Samhain

All Saints’ Day, also known as All Hallows, Solemnity of All Saints,[3] or Feast of All Saints[4] is a solemnity celebrated on 1 November by the Catholic Church and several Protestant denominations, and on the first Sunday after Pentecost in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, in honour of all the saints, known and unknown. The liturgical celebration begins at Vespers on the evening of 31 October and ends at the close of 1 November. It is thus the day before All Souls’ Day.

Hallowmas is another term for the feast, and was used by Shakespeare in this sense.[5][6] However, a few recent writers have applied this term to the three days from 31 October to 2 November inclusive,[7] as a synonym for the triduum of Hallowtide.[8]

In Catholic theology, the day commemorates all those who have attained the beatific vision in Heaven. It is a national holiday in many historically Catholic countries. In the Catholic Church and many Anglican churches, the next day specifically commemorates the departed faithful who have not yet been purified and reached Heaven. Christians who celebrate All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day do so in the fundamental belief that there is a prayerful spiritual bond between those in heaven (the “Church triumphant“), and the living (the “Church militant“). Other Christian traditions define, remember and respond to the saints in different ways; for example, in the Methodist Church, the word “saints” refers to all Christians and therefore, on All Saints’ Day, the Church Universal, as well as the deceased members of a local congregation, are honored and remembered.[9]

All Saints’ Day may originate in the ancient Roman observation of 13 May, the Feast of the Lemures, in which malevolent and restless spirits of the dead were propitiated. Liturgiologists base the idea that this Lemuria festival was the origin of that of All Saints on their identical dates and on the similar theme of “all the dead”.[10]

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the observance. For other uses, see Halloween (disambiguation).

“All Hallows’ Eve” redirects here. For other uses, see All Hallows’ Eve (disambiguation).

Page semi-protected

Halloween

Jack-o'-Lantern 2003-10-31.jpg

A jack-o’-lantern, one of the symbols of Halloween representing the souls of the dead[1]

Also called
Hallowe’en
Allhallowe’en
All Hallows’ Eve
All Saints’ Eve

Observed by
Western Christians and many non-Christians around the world[2]

Significance
First day of Allhallowtide

Celebrations
Trick-or-treating, costume parties, making jack-o’-lanterns, lighting bonfires, divination, apple bobbing, visiting haunted house attractions

Observances
Church services,[3] prayer,[4] fasting,[2] and vigils[5]

Date
31 October

Next time
31 October 2015

Frequency
annual

Related to
Totensonntag, Blue Christmas, Thursday of the Dead, Samhain, Hop-tu-Naa, Calan Gaeaf, Allantide, Day of the Dead, Reformation Day, All Saints’ Day, Mischief Night (cf. vigils)

Halloween or Hallowe’en (/ˌhæləˈwn, ˈn, ˌhɑːl/) is a yearly celebration observed in a number of countries on 31 October, the eve of the Western Christian feast of All Hallows’ Day. It initiates the triduum of Allhallowtide,[6] the time in the liturgical year dedicated to remembering the dead, including saints (hallows), martyrs, and all the faithful departed believers.[7] Within Allhallowtide, the traditional focus of All Hallows’ Eve revolves around the theme of using “humor and ridicule to confront the power of death.”[8]

According to many scholars, All Hallows’ Eve is a Christianized feast initially influenced by Celtic harvest festivals,[9][10] with possible pagan roots, particularly the Gaelic Samhain.[11][12][13] Other scholars maintain that it originated independently of Samhain and has solely Christian roots.[14][15]

Report: Hitler was on crystal meth

AP Travel Trip Hitlers Munich

(NEWSER) – Adolf Hitler apparently relied on a stunning array of drugs while ruling Nazi Germany, including one made popular by the show Breaking Bad: crystal meth.

According to a 47-page U.S. military dossier, a physician filled the Fuhrer with barbiturate tranquilizers, morphine, bulls’ semen, a pill that contained crystal meth, and other drugs, depending on Hitler’s momentary needs, the Daily Mail reports. By this account, Hitler downed crystal meth before a 1943 meeting with Mussolini in which the Fuhrer ranted for two hours, and took nine shots of methamphetamine while living out his last days in his bunker.

The dossier’s allegations will be considered in a British TV documentary this weekend called Hitler’s Hidden Drug Habit, the Times of Israel reports.

Just who was Hitler’s dealer? Named Theodor Morell, he succeeded as a Berlin doctor despite his unconventional methods and controversial past. Revelations that he had treated Jews hurt his business in 1933, and many thought he appeared Jewish; Hitler’s inner circle disliked both his appearance and his practices, according to the Times. A U.S. collector who found the dossier also criticized Morell, calling him “a quack and a fraud and a snake oil salesman.” Yet Hitler trusted him until the Nazis fell in 1945.

Hitler’s alleged use of other drugs, like cocaine and amphetamines, has already been documented — the International Business Times mentions two documentaries that cover it — but his apparent reliance on 74 drugs, including crystal meth, adds to the portrait of a hypochondriac ruling Nazi Germany while high.

(Another recent documentary alleges that Hitler was a billionaire tax dodger.)

This article originally appeared on Newser: Report: Hitler Was on Crystal Meth

 

CONTINUE READING…

September 2004 Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? –

by Guenter Lewy

Guenter Lewy, who for many years taught political science at the University of Massachusetts, has been a contributor to Commentary since 1964. His books include”The Catholic Church & Nazi Germany, Religion & Revolution, America in Vietnam,” and “The Cause that Failed: Communism in American Political Life.”

On September 21, the National Museum of the American Indian will open its doors. In an interview early this year, the museum’s founding director, W. Richard West, declared that the new institution would not shy away from such difficult subjects as the effort to eradicate American Indian culture in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a safe bet that someone will also, inevitably, raise the issue of genocide.

The story of the encounter between European settlers and America’s native population does not make for pleasant reading. Among early accounts, perhaps the most famous is Helen Hunt Jackson’s A Century of Dishonor (1888), a doleful recitation of forced removals, killings, and callous disregard. Jackson’s book, which clearly captured some essential elements of what happened, also set a pattern of exaggeration and one-sided indictment that has persisted to this day.

Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a”vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record.” By the end of the 19th century, writes David E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone the”worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people.” In the judgment of Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr.,”there can be no more monumental example of sustained genocide—certainly none involving a ‘race’ of people as broad and complex as this—anywhere in the annals of human history.”

The sweeping charge of genocide against the Indians became especially popular during the Vietnam war, when historians opposed to that conflict began drawing parallels between our actions in Southeast Asia and earlier examples of a supposedly ingrained American viciousness toward non-white peoples. The historian Richard Drinnon, referring to the troops under the command of the Indian scout Kit Carson, called them”forerunners of the Burning Fifth Marines” who set fire to Vietnamese villages, while in The American Indian: The First Victim (1972), Jay David urged contemporary readers to recall how America’s civilization had originated in”theft and murder” and”efforts toward . . . genocide.”

Further accusations of genocide marked the run-up to the 1992 quincentenary of the landing of Columbus. The National Council of Churches adopted a resolution branding this event”an invasion” that resulted in the”slavery and genocide of native people.” In a widely read book, The Conquest of Paradise (1990), Kirkpatrick Sale charged the English and their American successors with pursuing a policy of extermination that had continued unabated for four centuries. Later works have followed suit. In the 1999 Encyclopedia of Genocide, edited by the scholar Israel Charny, an article by Ward Churchill argues that extermination was the”express objective” of the U.S. government. To the Cambodia expert Ben Kiernan, similarly, genocide is the”only appropriate way” to describe how white settlers treated the Indians. And so forth.

That American Indians suffered horribly is indisputable. But whether their suffering amounted to a”holocaust,” or to genocide, is another matter.

II

It is a firmly established fact that a mere 250,000 native Americans were still alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century. Still in scholarly contention, however, is the number of Indians alive at the time of first contact with Europeans. Some students of the subject speak of an inflated”numbers game”; others charge that the size of the aboriginal population has been deliberately minimized in order to make the decline seem less severe than it was.

The disparity in estimates is enormous. In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.

From one perspective, these differences, however startling, may seem beside the point: there is ample evidence, after all, that the arrival of the white man triggered a drastic reduction in the number of native Americans. Nevertheless, even if the higher figures are credited, they alone do not prove the occurrence of genocide.

To address this issue properly we must begin with the most important reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline—namely, the spread of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity. This phenomenon is known by scholars as a”virgin-soil epidemic”; in North America, it was the norm.

The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease; in several cases, entire tribes were rendered extinct. Other killers included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. Although syphilis was apparently native to parts of the Western hemisphere, it, too, was probably introduced into North America by Europeans.

About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,”but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath.” It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases”were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs.” As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as”furnaces of death.”

But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s”furnaces of death,” the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur.

The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of”genocidal war.” True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. True, too, some colonists later welcomed the high mortality among Indians, seeing it as a sign of divine providence; that, however, does not alter the basic fact that Europeans did not come to the New World in order to infect the natives with deadly diseases.

Or did they? Ward Churchill, taking the argument a step further than Stannard, asserts that there was nothing unwitting or unintentional about the way the great bulk of North America’s native population disappeared:”it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed.” In brief, the Europeans were engaged in biological warfare.

Unfortunately for this thesis, we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened the British garrisons west of the Allegheny mountains. Worried about his limited resources, and disgusted by what he saw as the Indians’ treacherous and savage modes of warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:”You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst’s suggestion, but whether he himself carried it out is uncertain. On or around June 24, two traders at Fort Pitt did give blankets and a handkerchief from the fort’s quarantined hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians, and one of the traders noted in his journal:”I hope it will have the desired effect.” Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died.

A second, even less substantiated instance of alleged biological warfare concerns an incident that occurred on June 20, 1837. On that day, Churchill writes, the U.S. Army began to dispense”‘trade blankets’ to Mandans and other Indians gathered at Fort Clark on the Missouri River in present-day North Dakota.” He continues: Far from being trade goods, the blankets had been taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis quarantined for smallpox, and brought upriver aboard the steamboat St. Peter’s. When the first Indians showed symptoms of the disease on July 14, the post surgeon advised those camped near the post to scatter and seek”sanctuary” in the villages of healthy relatives.

In this way the disease was spread, the Mandans were”virtually exterminated,” and other tribes suffered similarly devastating losses. Citing a figure of”100,000 or more fatalities” caused by the U.S. Army in the 1836-40 smallpox pandemic (elsewhere he speaks of a toll”several times that number”), Churchill refers the reader to Thornton’s American Indian Holocaust and Survival.

Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that”the distribution of smallpox- infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark . . . was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40.” In evidence, they cite the journal of a contemporary at Fort Clark, Francis A. Chardon.

But Chardon’s journal manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets, instead blaming the epidemic on the inadvertent spread of disease by a ship’s passenger. And as for the”100,000 fatalities,” not only does Thornton fail to allege such obviously absurd numbers, but he too points to infected passengers on the steamboat St. Peter’s as the cause. Another scholar, drawing on newly discovered source material, has also refuted the idea of a conspiracy to harm the Indians.

Similarly at odds with any such idea is the effort of the United States government at this time to vaccinate the native population. Smallpox vaccination, a procedure developed by the English country doctor Edward Jenner in 1796, was first ordered in 1801 by President Jefferson; the program continued in force for three decades, though its implementation was slowed both by the resistance of the Indians, who suspected a trick, and by lack of interest on the part of some officials. Still, as Thornton writes:”Vaccination of American Indians did eventually succeed in reducing mortality from smallpox.”

To sum up, European settlers came to the New World for a variety of reasons, but the thought of infecting the Indians with deadly pathogens was not one of them. As for the charge that the U.S. government should itself be held responsible for the demographic disaster that overtook the American-Indian population, it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument. The United States did not wage biological warfare against the Indians; neither can the large number of deaths as a result of disease be considered the result of a genocidal design.

III

Still, even if up to 90 percent of the reduction in Indian population was the result of disease, that leaves a sizable death toll caused by mistreatment and violence. Should some or all of these deaths be considered instances of genocide?

We may examine representative incidents by following the geographic route of European settlement, beginning in the New England colonies. There, at first, the Puritans did not regard the Indians they encountered as natural enemies, but rather as potential friends and converts. But their Christianizing efforts showed little success, and their experience with the natives gradually yielded a more hostile view. The Pequot tribe in particular, with its reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness, was feared not only by the colonists but by most other Indians in New England. In the warfare that eventually ensued, caused in part by intertribal rivalries, the Narragansett Indians became actively engaged on the Puritan side.

Hostilities opened in late 1636 after the murder of several colonists. When the Pequots refused to comply with the demands of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the surrender of the guilty and other forms of indemnification, a punitive expedition was led against them by John Endecott, the first resident governor of the colony; although it ended inconclusively, the Pequots retaliated by attacking any settler they could find. Fort Saybrook on the Connecticut River was besieged, and members of the garrison who ventured outside were ambushed and killed. One captured trader, tied to a stake in sight of the fort, was tortured for three days, expiring after his captors flayed his skin with the help of hot timbers and cut off his fingers and toes. Another prisoner was roasted alive.

The torture of prisoners was indeed routine practice for most Indian tribes, and was deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Valuing bravery above all things, the Indians had little sympathy for those who surrendered or were captured. Prisoners. unable to withstand the rigor of wilderness travel were usually killed on the spot. Among those—Indian or European—taken back to the village, some would be adopted to replace slain warriors, the rest subjected to a ritual of torture designed to humiliate them and exact atonement for the tribe’s losses. Afterward the Indians often consumed the body or parts of it in a ceremonial meal, and proudly displayed scalps and fingers as trophies of victory.

Despite the colonists’ own resort to torture in order to extract confessions, the cruelty of these practices strengthened the belief that the natives were savages who deserved no quarter. This revulsion accounts at least in part for the ferocity of the battle of Fort Mystic in May 1637, when a force commanded by John Mason and assisted by militiamen from Saybrook surprised about half of the Pequot tribe encamped near the Mystic River.

The intention of the colonists had been to kill the warriors”with their Swords,” as Mason put it, to plunder the village, and to capture the women and children. But the plan did not work out. About 150 Pequot warriors had arrived in the fort the night before, and when the surprise attack began they emerged from their tents to fight. Fearing the Indians’ numerical strength, the English attackers set fire to the fortified village and retreated outside the palisades. There they formed a circle and shot down anyone seeking to escape; a second cordon of Narragansett Indians cut down the few who managed to get through the English line. When the battle was over, the Pequots had suffered several hundred dead, perhaps as many as 300 of these being women and children. Twenty Narragansett warriors also fell.

A number of recent historians have charged the Puritans with genocide: that is, with having carried out a premeditated plan to exterminate the Pequots. The evidence belies this. The use of fire as a weapon of war was not unusual for either Europeans or Indians, and every contemporary account stresses that the burning of the fort was an act of self-protection, not part of a pre-planned massacre. In later stages of the Pequot war, moreover, the colonists spared women, children, and the elderly, further contradicting the idea of genocidal intention.

A second famous example from the colonial period is King Philip’s War (1675-76). This conflict, proportionately the costliest of all American wars, took the life of one in every sixteen men of military age in the colonies; large numbers of women and children also perished or were carried into captivity. Fifty-two of New England’s 90 towns were attacked, seventeen were razed to the ground, and 25 were pillaged. Casualties among the Indians were even higher, with many of those captured being executed or sold into slavery abroad.

The war was also merciless, on both sides. At its outset, a colonial council in Boston had declared”that none be Killed or Wounded that are Willing to surrender themselves into Custody.” But these rules were soon abandoned on the grounds that the Indians themselves, failing to adhere either to the laws of war or to the law of nature, would”skulk” behind trees, rocks, and bushes rather than appear openly to do” civilized” battle. Similarly creating a desire for retribution were the cruelties perpetrated by Indians when ambushing English troops or overrunning strongholds housing women and children.

Before long, both colonists and Indians were dismembering corpses and displaying body parts and heads on poles. (Nevertheless, Indians could not be killed with impunity. In the summer of 1676, four men were tried in Boston for the brutal murder of three squaws and three Indian children; all were found guilty and two were executed.)

The hatred kindled by King Philip’s War became even more pronounced in 1689 when strong Indian tribes allied themselves with the French against the British. In 1694, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered all friendly Indians confined to a small area. A bounty was then offered for the killing or capture of hostile Indians, and scalps were accepted as proof of a kill. In 1704, this was amended in the direction of”Christian practice” by means of a scale of rewards graduated by age and sex; bounty was proscribed in the case of children under the age of ten, subsequently raised to twelve (sixteen in Connecticut, fifteen in New Jersey). Here, too, genocidal intent was far from evident; the practices were justified on grounds of self-preservation and revenge, and in reprisal for the extensive scalping carried out by Indians.

IV

We turn now to the American frontier. In Pennsylvania, where the white population had doubled between 1740 and 1760, the pressure on Indian lands increased formidably; in 1754, encouraged by French agents, Indian warriors struck, starting a long and bloody conflict known as the French and Indian War or the Seven Years’ War. By 1763, according to one estimate, about 2,000 whites had been killed or vanished into captivity. Stories of real, exaggerated, and imaginary atrocities spread by word of mouth, in narratives of imprisonment, and by means of provincial newspapers. Some British officers gave orders that captured Indians be given no quarter, and even after the end of formal hostilities, feelings continued to run so high that murderers of Indians, like the infamous Paxton Boys, were applauded rather than arrested.

As the United States expanded westward, such conflicts multiplied. So far had things progressed by 1784 that, according to one British traveler,”white Americans have the most rancorous antipathy to the whole race of Indians; and nothing is more common than to hear them talk of extirpating them totally from the face of the earth, men, women, and children.”

Settlers on the expanding frontier treated the Indians with contempt, often robbing and killing them at will. In 1782, a militia pursuing an Indian war party that had slain a woman and a child massacred more than 90 peaceful Moravian Delawares. Although federal and state officials tried to bring such killers to justice, their efforts, writes the historian Francis Prucha,”were no match for the singular Indian-hating mentality of the frontiersmen, upon whom depended conviction in the local courts.”

But that, too, is only part of the story. The view that the Indian problem could be solved by force alone came under vigorous challenge from a number of federal commissioners who from 1832 on headed the Bureau of Indian Affairs and supervised the network of agents and subagents in the field. Many Americans on the eastern seaboard, too, openly criticized the rough ways of the frontier. Pity for the vanishing Indian, together with a sense of remorse, led to a revival of the 18th-century concept of the noble savage. America’s native inhabitants were romanticized in historiography, art, and literature, notably by James Fenimore Cooper in his Leatherstocking Tales and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his long poem, The Song of Hiawatha.

On the western frontier itself, such views were of course dismissed as rank sentimentality; the perceived nobility of the savages, observed cynics, was directly proportional to one’s geographic distance from them. Instead, settlers vigorously complained that the regular army was failing to meet the Indian threat more aggressively. A large-scale uprising of the Sioux in Minnesota in 1862, in which Indian war parties killed, raped, and pillaged all over the countryside, left in its wake a climate of fear and anger that spread over the entire West.

Colorado was especially tense. Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians, who had legitimate grievances against the encroaching white settlers, also fought for the sheer joy of combat, the desire for booty, and the prestige that accrued from success. The overland route to the East was particularly vulnerable: at one point in 1864, Denver was cut off from all supplies, and there were several butcheries of entire families at outlying ranches. In one gruesome case, all of the victims were scalped, the throats of the two children were cut, and the mother’s body was ripped open and her entrails pulled over her face.

Writing in September 1864, the Reverend William Crawford reported on the attitude of the white population of Colorado: “There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’” Of course, he added,”I do not myself share in such views.” The Rocky Mountain News, which at first had distinguished between friendly and hostile Indians, likewise began to advocate extermination of this “dissolute, vagabondish, brutal, and ungrateful race.” With the regular army off fighting the Civil War in the South, the western settlers depended for their protection on volunteer regiments, many lamentably deficient in discipline. It was a local force of such volunteers that committed the massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado on November 29, 1864. Formed in August, the regiment was made up of miners down on their luck, cowpokes tired of ranching, and others itching for battle. Its commander, the Reverend John Milton Chivington, a politician and ardent Indian-hater, had urged war without mercy, even against children.”Nits make lice,” he was fond of saying. The ensuing orgy of violence in the course of a surprise attack on a large Indian encampment left between 70 and 250 Indians dead, the majority women and children. The regiment suffered eight killed and 40 wounded.

News of the Sand Creek massacre sparked an outcry in the East and led to several congressional inquiries. Although some of the investigators appear to have been biased against Chivington, there was no disputing that he had issued orders not to give quarter, or that his soldiers had engaged in massive scalping and other mutilations.

The sorry tale continues in California. The area that in 1850 became admitted to the Union as the 31st state had once held an Indian population estimated at anywhere between 150,000 and 250,000. By the end of the 19th century, the number had dropped to 15,000. As elsewhere, disease was the single most important factor, although the state also witnessed an unusually large number of deliberate killings.

The discovery of gold in 1848 brought about a fundamental change in Indian-white relations. Whereas formerly Mexican ranchers had both exploited the Indians and provided them with a minimum of protection, the new immigrants, mostly young single males, exhibited animosity from the start, trespassing on Indian lands and often freely killing any who were in their way. An American officer wrote to his sister in 1860:”There never was a viler sort of men in the world than is congregated about these mines.”

What was true of miners was often true as well of newly arrived farmers. By the early 1850’s, whites in California outnumbered Indians by about two to one, and the lot of the natives, gradually forced into the least fertile parts of the territory, began to deteriorate rapidly. Many succumbed to starvation; others, desperate for food, went on the attack, stealing and killing livestock. Indian women who prostituted themselves to feed their families contributed to the demographic decline by removing themselves from the reproductive cycle. As a solution to the growing problem, the federal government sought to confine the Indians to reservations, but this was opposed both by the Indians themselves and by white ranchers fearing the loss of labor. Meanwhile, clashes multiplied.

One of the most violent, between white settlers and Yuki Indians in the Round Valley of Mendocino County, lasted for several years and was waged with great ferocity. Although Governor John B. Weller cautioned against an indiscriminate campaign—”[Y]our operations against the Indians,” he wrote to the commander of a volunteer force in 1859,”must be confined strictly to those who are known to have been engaged in killing the stock and destroying the property of our citizens . . . and the women and children under all circumstances must be spared”—his words had little effect. By 1864 the number of Yukis had declined from about 5,000 to 300.

The Humboldt Bay region, just northwest of the Round Valley, was the scene of still more collisions. Here too Indians stole and killed cattle, and militia companies retaliated. A secret league, formed in the town of Eureka, perpetrated a particularly hideous massacre in February 1860, surprising Indians sleeping in their houses and killing about sixty, mostly by hatchet. During the same morning hours, whites attacked two other Indian rancherias, with the same deadly results. In all, nearly 300 Indians were killed on one day, at least half of them women and children.

Once again there was outrage and remorse.”The white settlers,” wrote a historian only 20 years later,”had received great provocation. . . . But nothing they had suffered, no depredations the savages had committed, could justify the cruel slaughter of innocent women and children.” This had also been the opinion of a majority of the people of Eureka, where a grand jury condemned the massacre, while in cities like San Francisco all such killings repeatedly drew strong criticism. But atrocities continued: by the 1870’s, as one historian has summarized the situation in California,”only remnants of the aboriginal populations were still alive, and those who had survived the maelstrom of the preceding quarter-century were dislocated, demoralized, and impoverished.”

Lastly we come to the wars on the Great Plains. Following the end of the Civil War, large waves of white migrants, arriving simultaneously from East and West, squeezed the Plains Indians between them. In response, the Indians attacked vulnerable white outposts; their”acts of devilish cruelty,” reported one officer on the scene, had”no parallel in savage warfare.” The trails west were in similar peril: in December 1866, an army detachment of 80 men was lured into an ambush on the Bozeman Trail, and all of the soldiers were killed.

To force the natives into submission, Generals Sherman and Sheridan, who for two decades after the Civil War commanded the Indian-fighting army units on the Plains, applied the same strategy they had used so successfully in their marches across Georgia and in the Shenandoah Valley. Unable to defeat the Indians on the open prairie, they pursued them to their winter camps, where numbing cold and heavy snows limited their mobility. There they destroyed the lodges and stores of food, a tactic that inevitably resulted in the deaths of women and children.

Genocide? These actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of war accepted at the time. The principles of limited war and of noncombatant immunity had been codified in Francis Lieber’s General Order No. 100, issued for the Union Army on April 24, 1863. But the villages of warring Indians who refused to surrender were considered legitimate military objectives. In any event, there was never any order to exterminate the Plains Indians, despite heated pronouncements on the subject by the outraged Sherman and despite Sheridan’s famous quip that”the only good Indians I ever saw were dead.” Although Sheridan did not mean that all Indians should be shot on sight, but rather that none of the warring Indians on the Plains could be trusted, his words, as the historian James Axtell rightly suggests, did”more to harm straight thinking about Indian-white relations than any number of Sand Creeks or Wounded Knees.”

As for that last-named encounter, it took place on December 29, 1890 on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. By this time, the 7th Regiment of U.S. Cavalry had compiled a reputation for aggressiveness, particularly in the wake of its surprise assault in 1868 on a Cheyenne village on the Washita river in Kansas, where about 100 Indians were killed by General George Custer’s men.

Still, the battle of Washita, although one-sided, had not been a massacre: wounded warriors were given first aid, and 53 women and children who had hidden in their lodges survived the assault and were taken prisoner. Nor were the Cheyennes unarmed innocents; as their chief Black Kettle acknowledged, they had been conducting regular raids into Kansas that he was powerless to stop.

The encounter at Wounded Knee, 22 years later, must be seen in the context of the Ghost Dance religion, a messianic movement that since 1889 had caused great excitement among Indians in the area and that was interpreted by whites as a general call to war. While an encampment of Sioux was being searched for arms, a few young men created an incident; the soldiers, furious at what they considered an act of Indian treachery, fought back furiously as guns surrounding the encampment opened fire with deadly effect. The Army’s casualties were 25 killed and 39 wounded, mostly as a result of friendly fire. More than 300 Indians died.

Wounded Knee has been called”perhaps the best-known genocide of North American Indians.” But, as Robert Utley has concluded in a careful analysis, it is better described as”a regrettable, tragic accident of war,” a bloodbath that neither side intended. In a situation where women and children were mixed with men, it was inevitable that some of the former would be killed. But several groups of women and children were in fact allowed out of the encampment, and wounded Indian warriors, too, were spared and taken to a hospital. There may have been a few deliberate killings of noncombatants, but on the whole, as a court of inquiry ordered by President Harrison established, the officers and soldiers of the unit made supreme efforts to avoid killing women and children.

On January 15, 1891, the last Sioux warriors surrendered. Apart from isolated clashes, America’s Indian wars had ended.

V

The Genocide Convention was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948 and came into force on January 12, 1951; after a long delay, it was ratified by the United States in 1986. Since genocide is now a technical term in international criminal law, the definition established by the convention has assumed prima-facie authority, and it is with this definition that we should begin in assessing the applicability of the concept of genocide to the events we have been considering.

According to Article II of the convention, the crime of genocide consists of a series of acts” committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such” (emphases added). Practically all legal scholars accept the centrality of this clause. During the deliberations over the convention, some argued for a clear specification of the reasons, or motives, for the destruction of a group. In the end, instead of a list of such motives, the issue was resolved by adding the words”as such”—i.e., the motive or reason for the destruction must be the ending of the group as a national, ethnic, racial, or religious entity. Evidence of such a motive, as one legal scholar put it,”will constitute an integral part of the proof of a genocidal plan, and therefore of genocidal intent.”

The crucial role played by intentionality in the Genocide Convention means that under its terms the huge number of Indian deaths from epidemics cannot be considered genocide. The lethal diseases were introduced inadvertently, and the Europeans cannot be blamed for their ignorance of what medical science would discover only centuries later. Similarly, military engagements that led to the death of noncombatants, like the battle of the Washita, cannot be seen as genocidal acts, for the loss of innocent life was not intended and the soldiers did not aim at the destruction of the Indians as a defined group. By contrast, some of the massacres in California, where both the perpetrators and their supporters openly acknowledged a desire to destroy the Indians as an ethnic entity, might indeed be regarded under the terms of the convention as exhibiting genocidal intent.

Even as it outlaws the destruction of a group”in whole or in part,” the convention does not address the question of what percentage of a group must be affected in order to qualify as genocide. As a benchmark, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has suggested”a reasonably significant number, relative to the total of the group as a whole,” adding that the actual or attempted destruction should also relate to”the factual opportunity of the accused to destroy a group in a specific geographic area within the sphere of his control, and not in relation to the entire population of the group in a wider geographic sense.” If this principle were adopted, an atrocity like the Sand Creek massacre, limited to one group in a specific single locality, might also be considered an act of genocide.

Of course, it is far from easy to apply a legal concept developed in the middle of the 20th century to events taking place many decades if not hundreds of years earlier. Our knowledge of many of these occurrences is incomplete. Moreover, the malefactors, long since dead, cannot be tried in a court of law, where it would be possible to establish crucial factual details and to clarify relevant legal principles.

Applying today’s standards to events of the past raises still other questions, legal and moral alike. While history has no statute of limitations, our legal system rejects the idea of retroactivity (ex post facto laws). Morally, even if we accept the idea of universal principles transcending particular cultures and periods, we must exercise caution in condemning, say, the conduct of war during America’s colonial period, which for the most part conformed to thenprevailing notions of right and wrong. To understand all is hardly to forgive all, but historical judgment, as the scholar Gordon Leff has correctly stressed,”must always be contextual: it is no more reprehensible for an age to have lacked our values than to have lacked forks.”

The real task, then, is to ascertain the context of a specific situation and the options it presented. Given circumstances, and the moral standards of the day, did the people on whose conduct we are sitting in judgment have a choice to act differently? Such an approach would lead us to greater indulgence toward the Puritans of New England, who fought for their survival, than toward the miners and volunteer militias of California who often slaughtered Indian men, women, and children for no other reason than to satisfy their appetite for gold and land. The former, in addition, battled their Indian adversaries in an age that had little concern for humane standards of warfare, while the latter committed their atrocities in the face of vehement denunciation not only by self-styled humanitarians in the faraway East but by many of their fellow citizens in California.

Finally, even if some episodes can be considered genocidal—that is, tending toward genocide—they certainly do not justify condemning an entire society. Guilt is personal, and for good reason the Genocide Convention provides that only”persons” can be charged with the crime, probably even ruling out legal proceedings against governments. No less significant is that a massacre like Sand Creek was undertaken by a local volunteer militia and was not the expression of official U.S. policy. No regular U.S. Army unit was ever implicated in a similar atrocity. In the majority of actions, concludes Robert Utley,”the Army shot noncombatants incidentally and accidentally, not purposefully.” As for the larger society, even if some elements in the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the U.S. government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy.

The violent collision between whites and America’s native population was probably unavoidable. Between 1600 and 1850, a dramatic surge in population led to massive waves of emigration from Europe, and many of the millions who arrived in the New World gradually pushed westward into America’s seemingly unlimited space. No doubt, the 19th-century idea of America’s”manifest destiny” was in part a rationalization for acquisitiveness, but the resulting dispossession of the Indians was as unstoppable as other great population movements of the past. The U.S. government could not have prevented the westward movement even if it had wanted to.

In the end, the sad fate of America’s Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.


– See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302#sthash.AExP7OQX.dpuf