Confederation vs. Federal GovernmentThis entry is a partial record of a recent dialog with a brother. Those interested in reading more of the dialog can find it at HisCalledOutAssembly@yahoogroups.com
December 15, 2007
(from the brother)
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union established a "confederacy" of free
and independent American states or nations. The Constitution for the
United States established a federal union of what is now 50 states.
Question: What is the difference between a "confederacy" and a "federal union'?
GOVERNMENT. The system of government administered in a state formed by
the union or confederation of several independent or quasi independent states; also the composite state so formed.
In strict usage, there is a distinction between a confederacy and a federal government. The former term [i.e. confederacy] denotes a league
[i.e. treaty] or permanent alliance between several
states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of
which retains its full dignity, organization, and sovereignty, though
yielding to the central authority
a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and
diplomatic relations. In this case, the component states are the units with respect to the confederation, and the central government ACTS UPON THEM, NOT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.
In the federal government, on the other hand, the allied states FORM a union, -- not indeed, to such an extent as to destroy their separate organization or
deprive them of quasi sovereignty with respect to the administration of their purely local concerns, but so that the central power is erected into a true state or nation, possessing sovereignty both external and internal, -- while the administration of national affairs is directed, and its effects felt, not by the separate states deliberating as units, but by the people of all in their collective capacity, as citizens of the nation. The distinction is expressed, by the German writers, by the use of the two words "Staatenbund" and "Bundesstaat;" the former denoting a league [i.e. treaty] or confederation of states, and the latter a federal government, or state formed by means of a league or confederation." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition page 740
we now see what change has taken place due to Washington's
consolidation of the Union; a change whereby the "administration of
national affairs by the central government is directed and its effects
felt directly by the people of all the states in their capacity as
federal citizens. This was the sole purpose of establishing a "more
perfect Union". It is "more perfect" for the aristocrats to control
the people for their own selfish purposes and those of their foreign
Living under the Articles of Confederation as a "free
inhabitant of a state" is looking better and better to me. I wonder if
we can return to the "Perpetual Union" rather than remain in the "More
I will wait for some comments and discussion
concerning the information I shared in my last three messages before
sharing any more.
December 15, 2007
Greetings brother Harry,
The information you have presented is significant, informative, and
helpful. Thanks again for the time and effort you have put into
What I say below is simply a recording of my current state of
knowledge, insight, and commitment.
I agree that living under the Articles of Confederation as a "free
inhabitant of a state" seems better than living under the "More Perfect
I am not aware that anyone has been presenting this as a viable option
of choice for people today.
I do not know anyone who is now claiming the former option. Nor would
I be optimistic regarding the results for someone who might claim to
make a choice for that option.
It seems to me that there is another, better option which remains open.
As for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh.
May He bless and lead each of us.
December 22, 2007
Greetings brother John,
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union recognizes two groups (status or standing) of people
- i.e. "the free inhabitants located at one of the free and independent
states in the perpetual Union" and the "free Citizens IN one of the
States of the perpetual Union." Of course today, under the U.S.
Constitution and its 14th amendment you are considered to be a citizen
of the United States federal government resident in a State.
"free Citizen IN a state" and/or a "not so free citizen of the U.S.
federal government" cannot serve Yahweh "only" because citizens owe
allegiance to the government of the state in which they are
members/citizens/subjects. We are to render what we owe to whom we
owe it, are we not?
Even though our Lord did not owe a
certain tax, when one of His disciples said He paid this tax in the
past, our Lord then paid the present tax
that appeared due of Him. Apparently there is not to be even a hint of
our not paying what is owed. Even if it is not lawfully owed it must
be paid if we are considered as owing it, thus the importance of our
correcting the record by correcting the mistakes we have made in the
past when we claimed to be citizens of the United States, residents,
drivers, employees, persons engaged in an occupation, trade or
the "free inhabitant OF [i.e. located at] one of the free and
independent states is of the state recognized status to be able to
serve the Lord their God and Him only. The "free inhabitant OF a
state" would not owe allegiance to any earthly government simply
because he is not a citizen IN the state. Only citizens IN the state
or federal government owe allegiance to the state.
"People OF a
state [i.e. inhabitants] are entitled to all rights which formerly
belonged to the king by his prerogative." Lansing v.
Smith, 21 D, 89
It does not say "citizens" in a state have all the rights of a king but only that "people" OF a state have such kingly rights.
it is not so much our choosing to "live under the Articles of
Confederation" as it is the fact that only the Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union recognizes an individual man's
natural right to inhabit land within the exterior limits of any of the
free and independent states in the perpetual union without being a
citizen of any one of them who, if he was a citizen, would owe
allegiance thereto. As a free inhabitant of a state, one would be
living under the Law of Nature and Nature's God.
Here is a court case that recognizes this lawful possibility.
the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of
government, and result from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind
in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws,
prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by
his fellowmen without his consent." Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796)
2 S.E. 70
my knowledge every state constitution in Article I of that constitution
recognizes mankind's right to live under the Law of Nature without
being subject to the laws of his fellowmen who are about to form a
government of men in Article II and following.
Also, when it
comes to correcting our status or standing, someone has to be the first
to make the correction which might be why you do not know of anyone
presenting this as a viable option at this time. As far as one being
successful in making such claim, we will have to wait until someone
makes such a claim and see what happens. Would you be willing to
attempt to correct your status or standing in the community?
me, the question is "where" are you going to stand as you seek to serve
the Lord and Him only? Will it be as a "free
inhabitant of one of the free and independent states of the perpetual
Union" OR as a person considered to be a citizen of the United States
resident in one of the States of the more perfect Union established
under the Constitution for the United States of America who is
considered by the government to owe allegiance to that earthly
government in which he is a citizen subject?
an apostle of our Lord, claimed his nationality to be that of a Roman,
but he did not claim to be a Roman citizen as did the soldier to whom
he was speaking. I claim my nationality to be that of a
Pennsylvanian. Under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
when I was in a foreign country I would claim to be an American
For me, "serving my Lord" is not an option. However,
if I am correct, it appears that where I "stand" as I seek to serve Him
while on this earth is a matter of choice and consent, else the
government is not a free government as
How to legally and lawfully make my choice known
to the "powers that be" and have them recognize my choice is not
altogether clear to me at this point, however I am working on it. My
blessed hope is that my Master will lead me to the truth regarding the
importance of my legally establishing my "standing" or "status" and how
how I might establish it with the civil government of which I am not a
member. When He does lead me to that truth it will be that Truth Who
will MAKE me free to legally, lawfully and in truth serve the Lord my
God and Him only.
Could I file into the county court a
non-adversarial ex parte action in which I would request or insist the
court issue an order in which it recognizes my true "status" or
"standing" in relationship to the members of the society who are
citizens of the United States federal government?
Please give this possibility some prayer and do share your thoughts with us.
December 22, 2007
Greetings brother Harry,
This most recent response of yours supports my continuing impression
that engaging in dialog with you is a rare privilege and blessing. You
are finding very significant references in legal records and using your
keen and disciplined mind to demonstrate their significance. I'm sure
that many who are interested in these questions will benefit greatly
from your work.
Also continuing is my impression that we share the same fundamental
commitment which propels us. We desire to be faithful to the same
Lord. I recognize the Spirit who seems to flow through your words. In
each of our experiences He may be focusing His work in differing ways,
but that is His prerogative. May we each be faithful to His leading.
Though I no longer share it, I think I can understand your intense
desire to prove from within written legal references that you are
correctly maintaining your status. You want to demonstrate to those
who feel bound within that system that your position is good. I feel
that I spent many years in the same frame of mind. Many of the
postings on my web site resulted from those years. Because I then felt
so led, it was a good experience. No longer do I feel so led. In the
contemporary lingo, I feel like I've "been there, done that".
At present I am more content and at peace to present as tactfully,
peacefully, and attractively as I am able, but yet directly and "head
on", the claim that I serve exclusively another master, the Creator and
Lord of all, and that, so long as I am correctly discerning and
faithfully following His will, any attempts to limit my freedom to
serve Him which are based on legal creations of men have no legitimacy
and cannot prevail. If this claim is not honored when presented
directly, I have no confidence that it will be recognized if supported
by references from human legal records. I know that the record
demonstrates that at unpredictable times such appeals are successful.
But my sense is that these successes result from the work of the Spirit
who moves like the wind, and cannot be programmed.
My lack of confidence in appeals to legal records is related to my
sense that legal officers who are presented with this evidence and
recognize some validity in it are immediately forced into a
schizophrenic state of mind. Knowing the truth that the way of the
Creator and His Messiah is the way of freedom and blessing immediately
leads to the implication that all systems of human law are counterfeit
frauds which lead to tyranny, scarcity, and death. They are necessary
to restrain the evil of those whose hearts keep them on the path of
hatred and misery. Their legal officers can continue only so long as
men are imprisoned in the ways of darkness. To openly recognize the
claims of the kingdom of light would be to become evangelists of the
good news. Should great numbers hear and believe, the system which
maintains the legal officers would diminish greatly. Such is the
conflict of interest. It may be an undisclosed factor in the
unexpected resignations and career changes of some public officials.
The desire of others to prevent such changes of heart may lead to their
exorbitant pension packages.
With these meandering thoughts as background, I will inject some
further reactions into the body of your message below.
P.S. I thought I would inject comments, but the format doesn't seem to
permit that, as it used to.
I'll put some comments here. It will probably be evident what they
relate to in your posting.
We agree that we must "render what we owe".
It is a good observation that we must correct the record if we believe
that someone relying on that record may be misled to do what he would
not do if correctly informed. When and how this should be done is open
to much discussion. Previously on this forum we had some discussion of
what in today's world might be "public notice". I would not want to
make rules or policies on this for anyone else. May the Spirit lead.
The distinction between being "in" a state or "of" or "at" a state is
probably quite important in legalese. It's good to be aware of it.
In this context, to be "of" a state seems to mean to be "of" or "at" a
territory or area of the earth's surface. My sense is that it's even
less ambiguous and confusing if we avoid the the use of "state" and
simply say that that we generally spend our time, or began our life on
earth, at a described location. My natural life on earth began between
the Six-Mile Creek and the West Branch of the Floyd River, which all
flow into the Missouri River about forty miles to the south. I now
spend most of my time not far from where the Little Arkansas River
flows into the Arkansas River, on the central plains of the continent
of North America.
If the Articles of Confederation "recognize" the rights of men to live
freely without allegiance to human states, then those rights existed
before, and independently of, the words of those Articles (or any other
human compositions). I'd rather appeal to the original situation.
The "Law of Nature and Nature's God" is terminology from the time of
the Declaration of Independence. It may have Deistic implications.
I'd rather use scriptural phrases, or language which the Spirit puts in
I am satisfied at present with the way I have made my claim of status.
The extent to which it is recognized is not in my control. Where do I
"stand" when I make my claim? What is my "status"? In Him I live, and
move, and have my being. I live in God's kingdom, where Jesus is
Lord. I need no other government.
All of Paul's claims must be understood with the awareness that he was
not trying to perfect his status or freedom. He was seeking a way to
stand before Caesar and testify to him. It was his specific calling
and mission. Each of us may or may not have a similar mission.
My best understanding and belief is that at the moment we sincerely
renounce all other sovereigns and lords and commit ourselves to serve
Jesus alone, we are lawfully and in truth free to do so. We may need
to settle some unpaid bills and "damages" from broken contracts, but
that is part of our service to Him. Whether or not we should try to be
"legally" free in the eyes of the "civil government" can be discerned
only as He reveals. May His Spirit enable all of us to discern His
I am not qualified to respond to your question regarding a specific
action in a county court. Nor do I feel any inclination to become so
Harry, it is truly a blessing on this wintry day to be able to continue
this conversation with you.