Notice the 14 branches of the tree representing the USA.
The USA is "Belittled" Everytime We
Pledge Allegiance to Merely 13 Original States!
Some People Say:"THERE WERE ONLY 13 ORIGINAL STATES OF THE USA!!!!"
(((I asked a lot of people, "How many original states of the USA were there?"
So far, everyone, even the New Englanders that I asked, have all answered, "13". DUHHHH!!!!!)))
Before the invention of various electric telegraph and code systems, humans
on planet earth hoisted colored flags in order to send messages to each other over long distances.
WHAT MESSAGES WERE BEING SENT 1783-1818?
THE DOUBLE SLAP IN THE FACE
still remaining in 2014,
TO THE USA & ABOLITIONIST VERMONT:
WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT
PUT 14 STRIPES NOR 14 STARS ON THE U.S. FLAG!!! NEVER!!!!
THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER OF 1795-1818 with 15 Stripes and 15 Stars.
(#14 Vermont conspicuously skipped going up from 13 to 15 stripes in 1795,
and again going back down from 15 to 13 stripes in 1818.)
There's also the argument that Vermont was the first sovereign and independent state of the USA, since the other 13 were only "colonies" at this early time in history. And by not being a part of the group, this sovereignty is greater than that of the other minor 13 sub-states.
Fourteen Stripe U.S. Flag Discovered Back in 2008: CLICK HERE. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Vermont Senators Sanders & Leahy should both be contacted immediately about this! Sometimes the government accidentally does the right thing for a change!
Myth: Vermont was an independant Republic 1777-1781-1791. FACT: Vermont was located always on U.S. soil. 1781 is the year that America's first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, went into effect, but totally ignored the existence of Vermont altogether. In effect, when we pledge allegiance to the 13 stripe U.S. flag, we're shouting out, "CANADA, PLEASE TAKE VERMONT - WE DON'T WANT THAT STATE TO BE PART OF THE USA!!!! WE HATE VERMONT! KING GEORGE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, IT'S ALL YOURS - WE ONLY CAN COUNT TO 13!!"
In case you were wondering, I was simply trying to find out which was the 14th state to become part of the USA, beyond the original 13 (sic).
The Border War Between New York and Vermont: now I find this about the border war between New York and Vermont. When this spat erupted immediately after the Revolutionary War had subsided into ceasefire mode, but about 2 years before the Treaty of Paris was signed, the issue of the 14th original state, Vermont, was in the news. There was also talk of a war between New York State and Vermont.
We have often heard about the 13 original colonies, so I simply wanted to know which state was the first territorial expansion of the USA beyond the original 13 (sic), or rather, which state was numero 14? Turns out there's not a simple explanation for that question since numero 14 was actually not the first true territorial expansion of the USA after the original 13 colonies, since Vermont was already one of the original 14 states that won the Revolution, creating a victor called, "Vermont Plus The USA". And state numero 14 was confirmed eventually as never having been a colony of any existing U.S. states or countries, unlike the other 13, originally subordinate to Great Britain.
#14 answered only to itself, and U.S. Commander-in-Chief General George Washington, and was therefore more originally independently American than the other 13. Washington (the person, not the city which did not yet really exist in 1791, and whose name is often used to represent the entire U.S. federal government apparatus) seems to have made sure that Vermont would be the first apparent expansion of the USA beyond 13, before Kentucky and Tennessee. I think that's pretty special for Vermont Plus the USA.
Turns out that Tennessee (#16) was actually the first true territorial expansion of the USA beyond the original 14, but that is not the subject of this story. This story is not about numero 16, nor about numero 15 (Kentucky), but is rather about numero 14. This story also contains no facts other than the most simple, obvious, and plain historical facts.
The fact that we always leave out Vermont as an original state of the USA is a bit depressing and deceptive.
After learning about #14, etc., I then naturally memorized states numbered 14 - 50, and in doing that, learned a great deal about the expansion of the USA beyond the first 14 states. The expansion of the USA from 15 to 50 is a story in itself that is rarely told. Then later, I memorized the original 13 colonies and the order in which they joined together into Vermont Plus the USA.
Why does the USA confuse itself into thinking our country was originally 7.142857 percent smaller, than it really was? (Percent value derived from this formula: 14 - X% = 13; X=7.142857%. This formula concerns only the original quantity of U.S. states, not their land area.) Why do we ridicule, mock and argue with the accepted value of the original quantity of U.S. states? Why does the USA, under solemn oath, belittle itself into something which never existed in the first place?
Could this be the secret of the riddle on the face of the U.S. one dollar bill? The missing capstone of the pyramid? Is this what the "missing stripe" of the U.S. flag also represents?
(18 November 2013) How to Pledge Allegiance to the U.S. Flag with One Missing and Forgotten Stripe:
The easiest way to remain loyal while pledging allegiance to the current flag, is to imagine it's the original Star Spangled Banner 1795-1818 which had 15 stripes and 15 stars, since we do in fact still call the current flag, "The Star Spangled Banner", so don't entertain thoughts of disloyalty. The real issue isn't the flag, it's the issue of slavery.
When there existed merely 13 colonies of Great Britain in North America that later became Vermont Plus the 13 original states of the "USA", those original 14 states minus Vermont were actually colonies of Great Britain when the quantity of U.S. states was counted as just 13. This group could be called the slaver-13 group before 1780, when Massachusetts abolished slavery.
Vermont never practiced slavery in the first place, so they never had to abolish it. (Well, maybe some early Vermonters owned slaves.... BUT, they were free to run away whenever they wanted to!)
There never were 13 total states of the USA! It simply didn't happen. However, practically all Americans think there were merely 13 original states due to this use of 13 original colonies symbolized on our flag. A MASS-CONFUSION CREATING ERROR! The fact that both U.S. Constitutions were written by representatives sent by only 13 states, adds to the confusion. (Constitutional Stupor!)
Yet, George Washington was Commander-in-Chief of a victorious Army and Navy sent by 14 states plus many foreigners, which won the war, not just 13. And without the very early U.S. victory at the Battle of Bennington won partly by Seth Warner and members of the Green Mountain Militia, Britain would probably have decisively won the entire war that would never then have been called, "The Revolutionary War".
Instead, it would've been called something like, "The American Lexington and Concord Uprising", or something like that.
Well, OK. If the USA had REJECTED Vermont's application to become fully part of the USA in 1791, then Vermont would not have become part of the USA, but 14 states would still have been the correct counted number of American states in North America who had just defeated the Brits, and founded the USA. And Vermont and the USA between 1777 and 1791 had plenty of time to consider the question. But I seriously doubt that Vermont and the USA, neither had any reservations about joining up completely.
Also, at the instant that the Brits lost at Yorktown, there were 14 states in revolt against colonial (British) control, not 13. Also, at very early moments during the Revolution and later also, that part of the USA later to be called Vermont, was part of the struggle, so 14 was the correct quantity of U.S. "parts" or "states" at every point during the Revolution, more or less. Therefore, to put 13 stripes on our flag is not a loyalty gesture toward the USA itself, but toward the slaver-13 group and Great Britain! Before you judge the truthfulness of this statement, please read the rest of this that follows:
I believe that the Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution in 1783, recognized the land to the west of New Hampshire, but to the east of that part of New York State bordering Canada, as U.S. territory. Note that all the "extra territory" of the original group of 13 U.S. colonies was "sold" to the new U.S. central government by those new and downsized 13 states in return for some or all of their debts being assumed by the brand new central U.S. government. That leaves Vermont's land as being "free and clear", and owned by the U.S. government after the Treaty of Paris of 1783.
But did the USA notice Vermont as well? This means that Vermont in 1783 and even 1775, was already recognized or noticed by Britain as being "part" of the USA well before it officially joined the USA in 1791. It also means that the USA would take part in resolving the conflict between Vermont and the various other U.S. states who were claiming that states's territory as their own, such as New York State which actually threatened to invade and seize parts of Vermont during the latter part of the Revolutionary War, prompting the President of Vermont to pretend to be loyal to the King of England. (The real truth: Vermont claimed territory stretching well into present day New York State, but later gave it back up to New York.)
Note that Vermont was fighting for independence and freedom with the other 13 states well before anyone wrote up the first and soon-to-fail U.S. constitution - the Articles of Confederation, so I don't think that the fact that Vermonters did not take part in writing either constitution makes any difference in counting correctly the number of original U.S. states.
THEORY: this amputation of part of the original USA as shown on our flag still today was probably initially an accidental congressional or presidential error, due likely to the more extreme Haitian slave revolts, part of the Haitian Revolution of 1791, that startled the founding fathers so much that they forgot to put up 14 stripes to honor slavery-abolished & apparent-first-expansion Vermont which joined with the USA totally in 1791 also. The flag with both stripe number 14 and stripe number 15 honoring these two new states, both of whose lands were already owned and held physically by the USA, appeared in 1795. Later in 1818, this math error again shrunk the "total number of stripes" on the Star Spangled Banner flag back down by two states to erroneous number 13 total states of the Revolution - which was simply not true at any point in the history of the USA.
From 1818 until the present moment, the entire population of the USA has been essentially "hypnotized" by this ancient miscount/math error emblazoned on our national flag!
Also, I think I read that New York State and the brand new U.S. government had calculated that Vermont owed New York State $30,000.00 for possibly having sponsored most of Vermont's troops during the latter part of the Revolutionary War, and for paying for territory claimed by New Yorkers. I think this is what Vermont had to pay the USA in order to join completely with the USA in 1791, and these funds probably soon went to New York State, where George Washington and Company had just been holding forth as the new U.S. central government in New York City until 1790.
This mis-count of 13 rather than 14 makes no sense at all, and literally subtracts from the USA in every possible way! Why are we still pledging allegiance to the memory of an erroneous number of original U.S. states?
I think America deserves better than this miscalculation unless we wish to enshrine math errors, and other errors, as some essential aspect of Americanism.
The author of this website believes that an additional shorter stripe, either white or red, #14, be placed at the top of the current U.S. flag to represent, belatedly, the unique significance of that part of the USA later to be called Vermont fighting the British during essentially all of the entire American Revoulution, and eventually entering the USA totally in early 1791 as state #14. Vermont was also the first slavery-abolished U.S. state, having never allowed it at any time; neither before they formed a state government, nor after.
However, it was a smaller U.S. state which would've had a larger effect had it been larger in influence. They should've piped up about this simple math error at some point in U.S. history already. Therefore, the stripe should be small to indicate the smaller effect it had, rather than a larger effect.
The Civil War occurred because Vermont was small, rather than large, is my point. The USA was the only major country in the world to end slavery through war - STUPID!
The new stripe at the top of the flag should represent 1)if white, then the white hair of George Washington, who freed all of His slaves in His will, and who was Commander-in-Chief of the USA both when Green Mountain Militia helped fight the British during essentially the entire Revolution (one of the 14 original states), and later still when Vermont joined the USA completely in 1791 (again, one of the 14 original states). This new shorter white stripe from 1791, should also honor 1791 and the promised, and now delivered, Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution which were part of the original "new constitution" package sent to the fully counted 14 states, now fully counted, now fully ratified by them, and now providing legal authority on and after Dec. 15, 1791.
Also, if the new stripe be white, then it should also represent whatever the already existing white stripes represent.
Or 2), if the new stripe be red, then it should represent whatever the existing red stripes on the flag already represent.
Even when the new constitution of 1787 written by representatives sent by 13 out of 14 states was going into effect, without the Bill of Rights, the whole thing had been rejected by those 13 states which had sent representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to restructure the USA, unless the Bill of Rights was written up and added to the deal.
1791. The deal to implement the Bill of Rights, and therefore, accept the new constitution was not really fulfilled until around 1791, when Vermont fully joined up permanently with the USA totally with its $30,000 contribution, and its ratification as state number 14 of the required new ten amendments. That was also the year of the new whiskey tax going into effect, and in November 1791, when the mostly-militia based U.S. Army suffered its worst defeat in U.S. history against Native Americans at the massacre at the Wabash River in what was soon to be far western Ohio state, near present day Fort Recovery. The USA had to raise taxes, start up a brand new Army, and eventually "recovered" from the massacre. (Pres. Thomas Jefferson's administration later canceled the whiskey tax.)
Even when the Radical Republicans, in great political solitude, were emphatically adding the 14th Amendment to our Constitution with EXTREME difficulty in the 1866-1868 period, they still forgot to add a 14th victory stripe to the flag to herald their triumph in the Civil War against slavery. Finally honoring #14 slavery-abolished Vermont on the stripes area of the flag would've been a great way to chronicle their supposed victory of the recent civil war, and changes in the constitution (the 14th Amendment) toward racial equality.
What were the Republicans drinking? What were the Republicans thinking?
Using the laws of obviousness (inference), we can resconstruct some of the lost history of the USA! We also need more honest historians and politicians!
14 should be our new number for the USA, representing American states, mathematical accuracy, freedom, maple syrup, hard-work, justice, and prosperity! 13 represents British colonies, mathematical error, shame, debt, poverty, bondage, slavery, stupidity, and ignorance. In this case, 13 is the number of a long running error or miscount. 14 is the number of accuracy and precision.
Even if we do wish to honor the 13 original colonies of Great Britain and their acts of courage in beginning such a war against super-power Britain, this act of honoring them should not subtract anti-colonialist Vermont from the original USA of 14 total parts, or states, who together defeated the British, which should be more known than our shrunken self-image as being merely 13 rather than the true 14 original states.
What happened in 1818? In 1818, the act of reducing the stripes on the flag from 15 down to 13 occurred. What also occurred in 1818 was that one of the two victorious generals of the U.S. Army immediately after the War of 1812, had just again encountered "the enemy" in Spanish Florida, and had done something extreme in international circles that was threatening the peace with the U.K. (and Spain) after the recent Treaty of Ghent which ended that recent War of 1812.
General Andrew Jackson had just created new and serious strife with Great Britain by executing two British military officers during peacetime at Saint Marks, Spanish Florida.
NOTE: in those ancient days before the League of Nations, United Nations, etc., etc., times of peace and times of war were extremely different, unlike the modern world in which war seems to be the only constant. In 1818, violating the peace was considered the absolute worse thing that a person could do!
MY THEORY: also in 1818, Britain had not yet abolished slavery though many historians have ignored that fact in terms of the recent War of 1812. In the USA, this would also be when the slave-power was getting even stronger politically, and probably wished to snub the abolitionist movement, and anti-slavery #14 Vermont.
My theory: 13 stripes suddenly reappearing in 1818 on the U.S. flag was a coded message to the Parliament of Great Britain and the entire world, that the USA was very much still a pro-slavery world power, and that Great Britain should not worry that the USA was about to abolish slavery soon, nor about to honor anti-slavery and original U.S. state #14 Vermont too much, nor about to allow freedom for Natives and most blacks in NW Spanish Florida. (And, by honoring the 13 original colonies on our flag, rather than the true 14 original U.S. states, we are honoring the "motherland-U.K.-country" even more than ourselves, and we are even APOLOGIZING for having killed those two British military officers. SORRY ABOUT THAT!!! PEACE to our SLAVER-BROTHERS in London!!!)
We are saluting our very recent super-power enemy, Great Britain, not our original total 14 selves, with the 13 stripe flag, and helping to prevent more slave revolts. 14 stripes (or even 14 stars) appearing on the flag would probably create too much exitement and possibly, slave revolts.
We should also remember the 23 year period (1795-1818) when the original Star Spangled Banner with 15 stripes was the U.S. flag.
Hardly anyone knows there were 14 original states of the USA, and that slavery-abolished Vermont was #14!This ignorance makes no sense at all. How could nearly everyone have lost count of our own original number? Even the blue states are starting to turn red now.
Before the U.S. Civil War, the original constitutional institution of slavery for the purposes of the census of the USA, reduced a full human being from one person to only 3/5 of a person. This accidental diminution of the USA also distorted the nation's own self-image such that the entire country still thinks we were originally less than what we really were! There really were 14 original states of the USA, not 13!
Anti-Colonial Vermont! The people who later named their area, "Vermont", refused to be a part, sub-part, or colony of a few other U.S. states, and Great Britain. If they had not refused to be a colony of the U.K, and certain U.S. states, there would be no Vermont in 2013. In fact, there might not be a USA in 2013 if not for Vermont's original stubborn attitude to be free and independent. Remember the Battle of Bennington!
The belittled USA of merely 13 original colonies must grow up eventually and realize its true original size as having been 14 states total!
The price we have paid for a 20 percent literacy rate (1870)! We can also see clearly the possibility that the states were so powerful during the early years in the USA that literacy, math abilities, logic and reason were banished as the central government was mocked and ridiculed even with the design of its own flag, such that our ancestors miscounted and belittled themselves for suspected political reasons?
OR was it just a horribly embarrassing math error? Is this 7.142857 percent self-loss a form of tribute paid to the devil for this huge and horrible misrepresentation of U.S. history?
Georgia as a colony of Great Britian also initially banned slavery, but later allowed it.
Labor: both indentured servants and slaves on the run could all seek refuge in independent Vermont. I doubt that Rhode Island was such a place of refuge for labor on the run: not enough extra real estate in R.I. to expand.
The bondsmen are behind you! When Vermont joined completely with the USA in 1791, this act might have been interpreted as a setback for abolitionists and those reforming credit and banking laws, etc., etc. Major reform in banking, money, and credit did not occur until the Jacksonian era of the 1830's.
The Miscounted, Discounted, Era, or pre-Jacksonian era: until the post-civil-war era (1879 to be exact, the year that the U.S. banking system finally began giving Lincoln's United States Notes the same value as gold, silver, National Bank Currency, and gold and silver certificates), what one owed others, and was owed by others, and what was counted out, were all somewhat variable before a stable uniform currency beyond gold and silver coin, was finally achieved. No wonder everyone carried guns all the time. Pres. Jackson began demanding gold and silver all the time for the U.S. government itself, essentially banning state-bank-notes for Federal purposes with the "specie circular". (There were some "paper" ways to transfer money to and from the U.S. government under Andrew Jackson's "specie circular", but I don't know exactly how they did that.)
Jackson vs. Biddle: the main issue with Jackson was his conflict with Nicholas Biddle, the President of the Bank of the United States, and who once boasted in a letter to someone that he was ".... more powerful than any mere President of the United States ...".
Biddle, who was probably America's most well educated and connected person at that time in history, had started up the conflict by suddenly having his supporters introduce a bill into congress to re-charter the Bank of the U.S. a few years early, which enraged Jackson beyond belief. Thus began the showdown that ended with one more dead bank. But this was also a historically proper extension of Jefferson's distrust of banking, etc.
There may have been some forces working against Jackaon and the Democrats, but I'm really not sure if it was just a figment of the imagination of many angry and less prosperous people. Many improvements in the USA were occurring with Jackson as President, however. But it wasn't due to any personal brilliance from Andrew Jackson. He was just an old and successful General of the Army who became President.
Jackson and many others felt that Biddle and his supporters in Congress and elsewhere were controlling the political landscape of the USA in many evil ways, sometimes in cahoots with the British, etc., and Jackson was trying to take more control from Biddle. Jackson was critical of the banking system, but did not work much to reform it other than "dreaming" of an independent treasury system for the government itself. He is often portrayed as a proponent of "hard money", but in reality just didn't like Biddle and company. During these more primitive times, Jackson recommended that everyone keep their money (gold and silver) safe, but certainly not in a bank!
NOTE: although many think Jackson was only into physical gold and silver, this is not true. He simply wanted all U.S. paper money circulating to be worth its face value, which would be the same as gold and silver coin if it were super-high quality paper, which it wasn't generally. Especially in terms of MOST of the state-bank issued paper money, nearly all paper money during this era usually had less than its face value in actual value, never more than face value. However, the paper money issued by the Bank of the United States, was probably not discounted at all! This is a huge irony and contradiction in terms of Jackson's policies and plans.
Large directories intended to help identify counterfeit state-bank currencies were published nation-wide with pictures of all paper money currently circulating, and the percentage discounted value that various issues of paper money were given by the banks and state regulators, nationwide. This meant that when a person with money in their pocket counted out their payments, the recipient would usually pull out one of these directories, and proceed to calculate the actual value of the paper money being forked over. The payer then would have to fork over more money than they thought they had to pay. This system of mostly discounted paper money issued by state banks, had gone on since the beginning of the post-colonial era in the USA, not just after the demise of the Bank of the USA, and Jackson's selections of his "pet bank" menagarie.
An item at Wikipedia has stated that President John Quincy Adams did more to pay off the national debt than Jackson, who followed him into the White House. Probably most of the peacetime presidents after Madison paid off the national debt, but not all of them.
The following concerning the federal surplus of 1837 was gleaned from a book or paper named, "United States Notes", written by a former U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, John Jay Knox. This is online.
The One and Only Federal SURPLUS in U.S. History: President Jackson and his Vice President, and then sucessor, President Martin Van Buren, also paid off the entire Federal debt by late 1836, early 1837. The U.S. Government then accumulated a substantial Federal Surplus, three fourths of which was then distributed promptly to the states proportional to each state's representation in Congress, which was also proportional to each state's population relative to the total U.S. population.
Some liked "it", some didn't. There were also probably subtle (or demogogic) political and financial reasons possibly related to America's relationship with the financial system of the U.K., that led Jackson to pay off the national debt. (Unconfirmed:) I think it might have been related to the alleged deliberate manipulation of U.S. bonds in international financial markets that worried Jackson. According to standard Jacksonian philosophy, powerful and evil financial forces in London could manipulate U.S. foreign policy and expansionary plans, as long as our Treasury bonds were being affected this way or that, there. The Bank of the USA was also in cahoots with the same crowd, etc., etc., and in fact was their favorite villain. The Bank of the United States was the sole dealer of all U.S. debt issues. That means that this one private bank "controlled" the U.S. treasury bond markets along with their London "co-conspirators", according to standard Jacksonian philosophy.
The Jacksonian plan was to create the "Independent Treasury System of the USA", outside the banking system altogether. After some of Jackson's "pet banks" failed, those failures gave future "Jacksonians" the needed political ammunition to go ahead and do "it", that is, create the "Independent Treasury" system, which James. K. Polk eventually did. (He did "IT".)
The term, "PET BANK", is actually used incorrectly today. The entire argument and name calling "pet bank" is just ancient WHIG (extremely conservative) political hatred of the Jacksonians, in general! When you say "pet bank", you're identifying yourself as an ultra-conservative from the 1832 era!
However, for the banking system, and compared to the current world financial system, the Independent Treasury (IT) of the USA was a nightmare or "nuisance", as "it" drained actual money (at the time: gold and silver) out of the entire U.S. banking system, not unlike what Al Capone's friends probably did after Hoover sent the IRS after Al Capone, perhaps helping precipitate the Great Depression. (I never recall hearing of this reason, however. Now I think it could've been a much larger factor than some of the other supposed reasons.)
In terms of draining the money out of the nation's banking system, the Jacksonians, however, thought this was just fantastic! They didn't like or trust banks that much, as then understood. However, they liked "IT".
They wanted to be able to touch and feel their own "monies". These guys really wanted safety deposit boxes for their coins. (The Jacksonians.)
I'm really not sure really just why all the Jacksonians are so paranoid about the banks.
But, during this short period of no U.S. government debt, two new states were actually added to the USA: Arkansas (June 1836) and Michigan (Jan. 1837). It appears that these two new states were added at the exact same moment, more or less, that there were no longer any U.S. bonds being traded in London or anywhere else, just as Jackson was preparing to leave office. This does not prove anything, however, concerning nefarious forces in London.
(He left the government of the USA debt-free when he retiredd.) .
But now, suddenly, it's perfectly OK to go into debt! Sometime in 1838, the U.S. Treasury was nearly empty (this would be the total balances contained in the "pet banks", the ones not bankrupt, that is, as this was before "IT" occurred, that is, the "Independent Treasury of the USA" was not yet created), though the government was no longer in debt either. President Van Buren did not wish to raise taxes during the panic and economic downturn, so he issued U.S. Treasury Bonds again in order to pay the salaries and other obligations of the U.S. government. The U.S. government debt was never again paid off entirely, and the last one fourth of the 1836/1837 national surplus was never distributed, as there was never again another surplus in U.S. history. However, "IT" lasted until the 1920's, if you can believe that. (Probably used mainly by bankers and others to physically redeem gold and silver certificates issued by the U.S. government.)
It's also clear from Knox's paper that these paper Treasury Bonds and Bills, like all others throughout history except in modern times, were also intended to function as money, not just as investments. This is why I am so down on Hoover's administration. If Hoover and others of his group had read Knox's paper, the Great Depression might have been averted altogether, though I doubt that gold would've been retained except for foreign exchange purposes.
Note that founding Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton believed that debt was good for governments in general as it helped in restraining their inherent "mischieviousness".
Should we call Michigan and Arkansas, the two most mischievious U.S. states? When they joined, it had been about 15 years since the USA had expanded with Missouri, #24 in 1821.
Here's something from North Carolina history that gives evidence that public education was aided by the Jackson/Van Buren federal surplus distribution, helping replenish a fund used to pay for education and literacy until the Civil War.
The U.S. government was still using the "cumbersome" Jacksonian (from "Jacksonian" Pres. James K. Polk) Independent Treasury System into the Civil War with gold and silver certificates as the only true U.S. paper currency for Federal purposes, at first. The Lincolnian attempt to use more paper money during the Civil War was despised by the bankers, who trashed the first Federal "Greenback" currency, until after the war was over; however, the traditional state-bank currencies were finally banned entirely at nearly the start of the Civil War, while a new "Federal" National Bank currency was started up also during the war. However, Lincoln's Federal Green-Backs were trashed for the time-being, and the soldiers unlucky enough to be paid in them, got rid of them for pennies on the dollar.
Lincoln was a Jacksonian in a sense, and his V.P. for his second-term, Andrew Johnson, was definitely a Jacksonian. It wasn't until after the near political demise of the last Jacksonian (Andrew Johnson) that a uniform currency was finally achieved for everyone in the USA in the late 1800's.
Back to Vermont.
The original Commander in Chief of the USA would have always remembered the fourteen original states which won the Revolution. We should also refresh our memory, increase our self-esteem, correct this obvious self-shrinking error, and move forward.
If you say that there were only 13 original states of the USA, you're essentially calling George Washington a traitor to the USA, as it was probably President Washington who made sure that number 14 would join the USA before any other new states. Also, at this early time in the history of the USA, I wonder to what extent Vermont's $30,000 cash contribution forced the issue at a time when the USA had little or no credit. There's also the issue of the new country, the new USA, with our new Constitution of 1787 not being accepted by the 14 states unless the Bill of Rights were made part of the rule-book; this occurred with Vermont's ratification as state number 14, and tends to suggest that 14 original states successfully started the USA.
Without the 14th Original State and the Bill of Rights, the USA existed no longer.
Remember the original Star Spangled Banner that did not exclude Vermont, but did sort-of skip it to reach Kentucky's number 15. Oh well.
But what about Vermont itself? Do they care that everybody gets it mixed up? Probably not. They are glad to not have been one of the original 13 slaver states, probably. So don't expect Vermont to make any noise about this. It's up to U.S. to change the flag, not Vermont.
A great book whose existence proves that history does not have to be told in a horribly boring manner, and written by someone who later became Special Assistant, (and Special Cabinet Secretary), of President John F. Kennedy, is Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s, The Age of Jackson, which won a Pulitzer Prize. I can see why. (Schlesinger sat at cabinet meetings; therefore, he was a Special Cabinet Secretary.) The book is more enjoyable and easier to read than most top-selling novels of the day. The largest flaw of this book is that it panders to the Democratic Party a little too much, but Schlesinger always has the FACTS available, or it appears that way. Schlesinger points out that the top intellectuals in the world, top newspaper editors, top religious fanatics, labor leaders, everything, were in Jackson's camp, very similar to FDR's massive entourage during the Great Depression and WWII. Of course, a large minority hated him, just as FDR was hated. One major example during the Age of Jackson; Dred-Scott Infamy Associated Roger B. Taney lasted until the end of the Civil War. The central point of the book is the incredible parallel between FDR's New Deal "entourage" and Jackson's "entourage" as President of the USA. However, Schlesinger points out that Jackson listened to everyone, even his worst enemies. In fact, Jackson's official cabinets, according to Schlesinger, consisted of many Secretaries who hated Jackson, and who strongly disagreed with him. Jackson had to fire and then replace a number of Treasury Secretaries who openly defied his direct orders.
It's a false statement to say that the Green Mountain Militia, later to be the Vermont Militia, and now the Vermont National Guard, were originally outlaws. The land-grants which later became Vermont, were given out by colonial New Hampshire and colonial New York, mostly. These were legal land-grants issued under colonial governments. I'm sure there were also squatters in this area later to be called, "Vermont".
The problem was that at least two colonies of the U.K. were both issuing conflicting landgrants in what later became Vermont. This looks more like a problem with the government of the U.K., than with the colonists over here.
The inability or inaction of the U.K, and then later, the other 13 U.S. states to resolve the issue of conflicting Vermont land-grants may have been one factor that led to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Escaped slaves and debtors hiding out in Vermont, was one of those issues. Some of the people indicted elsewhere for "Shay's Rebellion", had gone to hide out in the Republic of Vermont.
Vermont definitely helped win the Revolutionary War, but they aren't counted as an original "colony", since they were never a colony of anyone, and since 14 is more than 13.
Confederate Miscount: The well known "rebel battle flag" also has 13 stars, while the actual CSA was never more than 11, later falling to 10 with the loss of Tennessee. The specific states which they hoped would join to increase by 2 are unknown. The following states may have all been expected to make the total 13 or more: Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, as well as efforts to make what later became Arizona, one of them also. Theoretically, the CSA might have consisted of 16 states.
Any lawyer would say there were, unfortunately, merely 13 original U.S. states of the USA itself after about 1781, when Vermont was left out the first time at the constitutional convention of slaver-states; however, any military person or historian might argue that there really were 14 original U.S. states which fought the revolution, and then formed a viable U.S.A., rather than only 13, which is a lawyerisky sort of count, and certainly before 1781, was Vermont any different than the other 13???
Before the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and the fact that the only fully abolitionist state at the time was little different than the other 13 in all other respects.
What was the difference between say, Vermont in 1780, and New Hampshire, in 1780? The only difference between Vermont and New Hampshire in 1780 is that Vermont was more abolitionist than New Hamshire, and also that there were conflicting land grant issues in Vermont also, still.
Vermont was the only original state of the USA to not be a trafficker of human beings, and is therefore, going to be continually insulted by the pirate-human-trafficker group of 13 satan worshippers that are still running the USA. (Just kidding. Maybe not. I don't know. Watch out!)
Myth: Vermont was an independant Republic 1781-1791. FACT: Vermont was located always on U.S. soil.
The one guy who was President of the USA who was very likely murdered would have to have been James. K. Polk of Tennessee, who died very shortly after leaving office. In fact, this guy likely died the soonest after leaving office, than any other president who finished his term(s) completely.
For all practical purposes, Polk staggered out of the White House after his term ended, and collapsed dead shortly afterwards! (He died a little less than three months later.)
Who killed James K. Polk?
Possible murderers of James K. Polk:
- Himself. He worked himself to death. This is the common belief.
- His slaves. He was said to be cruel to his slaves. I know I read somewhere that one or more of the actual White House slaves of President James K. Polk took part during his term in office, in an actual slave revolt in Washington, D.C., but when I tried to verify it, it was no longer online! I have used google repeatedly to search for this again, but I can't find it! Maybe that conspiracy is still manifest!!!!
- The Mexicans. After the Mexican War, they might have wanted to kill the President most responsible for the loss of the most amount of territory that they have ever lost - the largest fortune in North American history, swiped by this bastard from Tennessee!!!
- The banking system. Polk actually removed all U.S. government deposits from the banking system, and stuffed all that loot into the Independent Treasury of the USA, which was sort of like Fort Knox today, but instead distributed all over the government's operations areas into sub-treasuries and treasuries. This created a huge problem for the banking system, which shrank and expanded whenever the U.S. government withdrew or deposited money in or out of banks. They would have wanted to murder James K. Polk ASAP!!!!!
However much gold and silver the U.S. Government seemed to have, they were still in mega-debt under Polk, so they were always short of money, whatever you were thinking.
Remember all those movies about the old West where U.S. soldiers are guarding a train carrying a large amount of gold? This would probably be the U.S. Treasury operations during the period when the U.S. government actually used their independent treasury system, rather than banks.
Everybody thinks it was Andrew Jackson that really hated the banks. Jackson had his pet banks, but Polk didn't have any banks at all eventually. Jackson removed deposits from one bank, and spread that money out over many "pet-banks". Polk removed all the money the government had out of the banking system altogether!
Polk had "U.S. Treasuries" of his own as president, probably during the Mexican War to protect U.S. National Security during wartime, but I haven't verfied that. I would be very surprised to find out that Polk had waited until after the Mexican War to open the IT of the USA.
Whatever the case, in 1849 when Polk was president, they also struck gold in California for the first time, I think. So the IT was totally about to be flooded with GOLD starting in 1849! I think there was to be no gold shortage for the banks either quite yet until the Gold Rush had petered out a bit. When was that???
So maybe some of the reasons the banks would've wanted to murder Polk for, did not actually happen. Also, he probably had no trouble raising money from selling U.S. Treasury Bonds either. The Mexican War stimulated the economy, probably, as Polk probably borrowed heavily for the war. So just why did POLK decide to start up the IT when he did????
Hid body should be exhumed and an autopsy, if possible, performed.
Presidents Assassinated: two out of four expanding, or trying to expand the USA:
- Lincoln - began process of buying Alaska from Russia, largest expansion of the USA since the "Texas lands". Shot in office. AK (49) joins USA in 1959 when Eisenhower is president.
- McKinley - tried to expand into Hawaii, Cuba and Phillipines. Shot dead in office. Tiny Hawaii eventually joins the USA in 1959 under Eisenhower (50th).
Presidents assassinated in office, but who were not trying to expand the USA:
- James Garfield - was considered a math genius, but never counted correctly the number of original U.S. states, and was therefore shot dead! Also, did not expand the USA.
- Kennedy - although he did not campaign for it, and was not elected to expand the USA, he experienced a major setback for McKinley's prospective new U.S. state, Cuba. Shot dead. Cubans blamed for his death by some.
Presidents who expanded, or tried to expand the USA, but who did not die in office:
- Lyndon Johnson - the Chinese claim that the USA under President Johnson was imperialistically trying to get Vietnam to be part of the USA. Fact is, most Americans had never even heard of Vietnam, much less wanting to expand there 1945-1975. Same for Korea. Korea and Vietnam for the USA were not planned "acquisitions", but rather by-products of the recently successful World WAR II, which was also not planned by either the USA or its allies.
WWII was planned by the Axis powers.
- Washington - died soon after leaving office. Started the USA with 13 or 14 states. Then added Vermont(14) fully to the USA, and then Kentucky(15) and Tennessee(16). Bill of Rights is ratified soon after 14 joins.
- Adams. Re-invigorated U.S. Navy to continue dealing with the pirates of northern Africa. Wished to be remembered for having kept the USA out of a war with France. Had to deal a lot with raising taxes and paying off the national debt, which made him somewhat unpopular. Strongly believed that strong partisan activities by opponents during a President's term as chief executive were unconstitutional, so he initiated his "anti-sedition act" activities based upon this belief against his opponents.
Note that every President who has ever served has complained about partisan attacks while serving, but only Adams gets blamed and condemned for taking action against it. (Most democracies in the world today have strict rules prohibiting incumbents and opponents from campaigning outside set time and date limits.)
- Jefferson - purchased Louisiana lands from France (1803), Ohio becomes state number 17. For some reason, Jefferson seems immune from the trouble other expansionists have had. Lives a long and happy life. Canceled federal whiskey tax.
- Madison - Louisiana becomes state number 18, then he had to fight a large war to save USA from fragmentation or dissolution by Britain. White House and Capital burned down. Barely escapes British with life and wife, etc. Indiana number 19.
- Monroe - purchases Florida territory from Spain. Adds many new states (Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine, and Missouri). Like fellow Virginian Jefferson, seems immune from troubles having to do with expanding.
- President John Tyler - largely responsible for helping steward the process of both Florida and Texas becoming new U.S. states - a gigantic expansion of the USA. Florida number 27 joins the USA. Polk finished the process for Texas (#28) and usually is usually given full credit.
Most people don't realize that due to acting from his own position as "CEO" of the country, President Tyler was abandoned by both major political parties, and had to work alone as president with a generally very hostile press, as well.
In those days, most press people were somewhat part of the newspaper owners assets, and most newspapers were very closely connected to the major political parties, which in turn were very dependent on easy credit from "the bank" of the USA, or allied financial institutions. So nothing but slander remains for many major political figures, such as President Tyler, in U. S. history who remained independent of central bank, media, and political party control, such that we Americans in the 21st century know very little about some of these guys.
Just as when Jackson was president with "bank assets" Daniel Webster and Henry Clay leading opposition to Jackson's plans, so the opponents of Tyler's plans were mostly also keen on rechartering "the bank", which Tyler ultimately opposed. Before becoming president, Tyler was pro-united-states-bank-recharter. After finding himself in the oval office, he switched sides for "mysterious reasons".
In other words, if no one is paying the pen to write, then nothing is written. So nothing much was written about Tyler.
- James K. Polk - see above.
- Andrew Johnson - nearly shot the night Lincoln was killed, just for being V.P.! Later, finished buying Alaska from Russia, then was impeached shortly thereafter! Considered by historians to have been under house arrest for remainder of his term. Nebraska becomes state 37. Died fairly soon after leaving office.
- Woodrow Wilson - purchased the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark, but did not actually die in office. Nearly died after having at least one stroke. 25th Amendment to U.S. Constitution later ratified due to his near death and incapacitation while in office. Died fairly soon after leaving office.
- Ford - if the ending of McKinley's failed expansion into Cuba and the Phillipines had its own ending, it probably occurred when Ford was President. Therefore, Ford's presidency should hightlight the true ending of America's brief colonial period, and a new beginning for expansion, if not into Vietnam, nor the tiny sliver of real estate formerly called the Panama Canal Zone.
- Reagan - tried to expand into the Panama Canal Zone, but forgot all about it after getting elected. That actually saved Reagan from the bad luck that often occurs for those who don't forget to try to expand the USA. Lived a long time after leaving office.
- Obama - tries to expand into Puerto Rico - instead the place goes broke suddenly!!!! Oh well, maybe next time.
QUESTION: IS THE USA OF 2015 MORE LIKE VERMONT WAS IN 1777, OR, ARE WE MORE TODAY MORE SIMILAR TO THE 13 ORIGINAL SLAVER-COLONIES IN 1775?
My opinion is that the USA of 2015 is more like Vermont in 1777, than being similar to the other 13 original states in 1775.
Furthermmore, should we all disqualify "the 13 original LIAR-COLONIES" from being called, "the 13 original U.S. states", due to this long-running miscount and misjudgement of the true status of Vermont as being one of the original founding states of the USA?
I feel horribly insulted, damned, and deceived for not knowing that Vermont really was an original state of the USA, and that the USA is gradually growing up to become part of Greater Vermont!!!!
Most of this is from Wikipedia references, which do change all the time. However, research this yourself if you doubt any of this!
OK, so the term "slaver-13" was erroneous except before 1780. This was before both constitutions. Sorry about that! Mass. banned slavery in 1780. I still say that all 13 original U.S. states were "slaver" states, not just the Southern ones, and that leaving out Vermont is a punishment to the USA and Vermont both. For Vermont, the punishment is just for being abolitionist from the very beginning, unlike the other 13 "slaver states".
When we pledge allegiance to the 13 stripe U.S. flag, we're actually saying, "I totally ignore and dis-honor original and forgotten U.S. state, Vermont!!!! Also, GIVE ME BACK MY SLAVES, IMMEDIATELY!!!!"
Myth: Vermont was an independant Republic 1777-1781-1791. FACT: Vermont was located always on U.S. soil.