History Lesson for you lurking reich-wingers because I am sick of your ignorance.

[Xicano]

I am sick and tired of hearing from you dumbasses how America was created on the principles of deregulation and corporate freedom every bit as much as individual freedom. If you're going to claim to be American "traditionalists", then at least know some history first.

Corporate Sovereignty emerges during the 1600's. King Charles I granted a charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 to colonize New England. A few decades later in 1664, King Charles II sent agents to audit the firm, which responded by challenging the King's authority.

This event provided the first recorded clash between the emergent "corporate sovereignty" and the established authority which granted it a charter. Even as early as this time there was a grassroots effort to get corporate charters limited or revoked, the British judicial process placing jurisdiction over corporate litigation into the House of Commons, etc. In short, people began to realize that corporations did not quite behave as expected or desired.

A doctor named John Locke published "Two Treatises of Government" in 1690, criticizing perpetual corporate sovereignty by introducing a notion of individual sovereignty. John Locke writes:

"The power of erecting new corporations, and therewith new representatives, carries with it a supposition that in time the measures of representation might vary, and those have a just right to be represented which before had none; and by the same reason, those cease to have a right, and be too inconsiderable for such a privilege, which before had it."

John Locke's publication criticizing corporate power played an arguable part in influencing the start of the American War of Independence, and the era of individual sovereignty which emerged. Some colonial subjects in America had tired of corporate governance and cited doctor Locke as their legal basis. The American Revolution fought to replace British corporate rule with a new republic form of government. Colonial Americans hated corporations, in the sense that they hated the Crown exercising absolute control over chartering them. In another sense, they hated missing a share of the profits. Damn them little socialists wanting to "spread the wealth".

The resulting United States Constitution made no mention of the word "corporation" whatsoever. Instead, the new United States of America enjoyed a national sovereignty. The system was built on collections of individual sovereignty posed directly against governmental tendencies that had become characteristic of corporate sovereignty.

Corporations were severely restrained within the new republic. They could only be authorized by an act of legislature in one specific state, and not at the federal level. They could only exist for a single purpose serving the public good and only then for a limited period. State legislatures held the power to revoke corporate charters, and voter referendum could initiate that process. So far, so good — so what went wrong?

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson embargoed Britain and France, leading in part to the War of 1812. Americans needed food, so a political expediency led to a rise of corporate activity: does that sound familiar?

In response, industrialists in New England started forming corporations, explaining that they would feed and clothe the starving masses. Then, in 1819, the US Supreme Court rendered the landmark case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, citing the "contract obligation clause" of the US Constitution. That decision placed charters of existing private corporations outside the jurisdiction of the states which had chartered them. In one stroke, this provided a constitutional framework for federal corporate law, arguably disabling the primary mechanisms for control over corporations.

Corporate abuse was on the rise again, and "states rights" issues emerged from increasing federalization. Legal and political strife pushed tensions between northern and southern factions, which in general aligned along pro- and anti-corporate platforms, respectively. In 1861, the Civil War erupted, ostensibly over the moral issue of slavery, but arguably fought over political and commercial issues. Northerners distrusted the Southern plantation model, convinced that it would not support the economic expansion required for their corporations.

Toward the close of the conflict, in 1864, President Lincoln sent a letter to Col. William F. Elkins, apprehending the war's true nature and eventual outcome. Lincoln wrote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, ... and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Note that these words came from the man (one of the first notable Republican leaders) who had championed a bloody war effort to crush anti-corporate rebellion. Slavery was abolished, and three years after the war ended, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution established "equal protection" under the law for all persons. Or was that "equal protection" for corporations?

Within two decades, in 1886, the infamous Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case invoked the 14th Amendment to protect corporations as "legal persons" which in turn acted as agents and property of "natural persons". In other words, as constitutionally endorsed tulpas. This decision strengthened precedents established by Dartmouth v. Woodward to remove control of corporations from state/populace jurisdiction.

There you have it folks. Thirty years after the ratification of the US Constitution, the original experiment in democracy was over. Defunct by the 1819 US Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Back to being worse off than they'd fared as colonists, Americans got pissed off and started to war with each other.

No matter what you learned in school (using textbooks produced by corporate publishers, no doubt) the war concerned slavery... It meant precious little about ending the subjugation of African Americans, since de facto civil rights would not even begin to happen for another hundred years! The war, however, meant much more about establishing and enforcing corporate slavery, which subsequently SCOTUS Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad practically guaranteed. America launched into its heyday of trusts, robber barons, etc.

Since then we've had some modest attempts to bridle corporate power through regulations with the very same people who claim to be American "traditionalist" (conservatives/republicans) kicking & screaming, and, fighting us "we the people" on behalf of corporate power.

Now if you're the traditionalists you claim to be then stop being so un-patriotic and anti-American and fight the fight that the early Americans you claim to mimicking fought. But you won't will you? Because lets face it, you're too stupid to realize you're fighting against your own interests and against our country's interests. Prove me wrong.