CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
PART D OF A-D
[CAVEAT AND NOTICE: There is nothing intended or to be implied here to connect or assiciate what follows regarding the resurrection of the EIC by “name” (or its principals) in 2010 to or with the historical practices of the EIC discussed fron its inception through 1870, when it apparently ceased to exist.
_________
The A.D. 2010 Resurrection of EIC within in the
The British East India Company, under permission given by the British Crown was resurrected and charter in A.D. 2010. “Sanjiv Mehta (born October 1961) is an India-born British businessman. He is the owner of "the East India company", which he launched in 2010, presenting it as a revival of the historic East India Company that was dissolved on 1 June 1874.[1][2][3][4] …Mehta's business also attracted investment from other companies including the India-based Mahindra Group(2011)[17] and the UAE-based Lulu Group (2014).[18] ” (fn.[2]) (Mahindra Group, fn.[3]) (Lulu Group, fn.[4]) Mehta’s involvement and holdings in international trade of diamonds, oil and pharmaceuticals in Russia, steel in England, tea, and luxury space retail cannot be overlooked.
_________
At this point, before proceeding further, let’s take a moment to analyze this for analogies … to the current circumstances Americans are witnessing at every turn in our lives.
What do we know about the birth of mercantilism and its PLAYBOOK implemented by VOC and EIC?
What do we know about that mercantile EIC PLAYBOOK as a “Business Model” which reached such a geographical extent, that it was bigger than nation states; and had their own private armies which fought wars for those nations as mercenaries; wrote laws, and installed judges in cities in which they traded?
What do we now know about debt bondage (peonage); intertwined as an international syndicate operating debtor’s prisons, adult/child slavery, and trafficking?
Did the debt system within England, Europe, and America exist in America before and after the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did the colonies have within them debtor’s prisons before and after the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did unpaid war debts of America, and dire financial conditions of America and Americans arise out of the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did America’s unpaid war debt increase with the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, the Civil War 1861-1865? Yes! In A.D. 1865-1890, did the national government react and take steps to address the unpaid war debt? Yes!
Debt Bondage
We will begin right there to address each of those questions answered with yes by presenting some historical events, and an analysis brought forward to A.D. 2023 which, over time, will bring some clarity to readers.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
PART C OF A-D
Freelance writer David Roos has written salient insights into the influence of the British East India Company (EIC) upon the current corporate and legal structure in America and other Western nations entitled: “How the East India Company Became the World’s Most Powerful Monopoly” (fn.[1]):
[EIC’s Rise to Largest Cartel in the World] One of the biggest, most dominant corporations in history operated long before the emergence of tech giants like Apple or Google or Amazon. The English East India Company was incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600 and went on to act as a part-trade organization, part-nation-state and reap vast profits from overseas trade with India, China, Persia and Indonesia for more than two centuries. Its business flooded England with affordable tea, cotton textiles and spices, and richly rewarded its London investors with returns as high as 30 percent.
“At its peak, the English East India Company was by far the largest corporation of its kind,” says Emily Erikson, a sociology professor at Yale University and author of Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company. “It was also larger than several nations. It was essentially the de facto emperor of large portions of India, which was one of the most productive economies in the world at that point.” …
Even though the East India Company was technically a private venture, its royal charter and battle-ready employees gave it political weight. Indian rulers invited local Company bosses to court, extracted bribes from them, and recruited the Company’s muscle in regional warfare, sometimes against French or Dutch trading companies.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
Between the period of A.D. 1300-1850, manipulations of food production and supplies; regulation of supply of currency, artificially managed in a manner to create shortages, famines, community diseases, and inability to pay debts continuously occurred in England. All debtor’s prisons served as locations where prisoners and their families served as profit centers for private business of EIC and others.
“… Eighteenth-century prisons were effectively lodging houses. Poorly maintained and often filthy, they might consist of a couple of rooms in a cellar.
Before the Gaols Act 1823, then the Prisons Act 1835 and the Prison Act 1877, they were administered by the royal household, the aristocracy and the bishops, and run for profit by private individuals who bought the right to manage and make money from them.[19]
Prisoners had to pay rent, feed and clothe themselves and, in the larger prisons, furnish their rooms. One man found not guilty at trial in 1669 was not released because he owed prison fees from his pre-trial confinement, a position supported by the judge, Matthew Hale.[21]
Jailers sold food or let out space for others to open shops; the Marshalsea contained several shops and small restaurants.[22] Prisoners with no money or external support faced starvation. If the prison did supply food to its non-paying inmates, it was purchased with charitable donations—donations sometimes siphoned off by the jailers—usually bread and water with a small amount of meat, or something confiscated as unfit for human consumption.[22]
Jailers would load prisoners with fetters and other iron, then charge for their removal, known as "easement of irons" (or "choice of irons"); this became known as the "trade of chains".[23] (fn.[6])
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
3. the British East India Company (controllers of debt Perpetual peonage, and debtor’s prisons),
PART A OF A-D
Some archive records indicate the British Debtor’s Prison Cartel was purchased (c. A.D. mid-1500’s) from the Crown authorizing by charter for private profiteering, in order to pay off war debts of England. Although EIC’s charter ended in A.D. 1882, EIC was recently resurrected in A.D. 2010 by a group of English businessmen with investment and ownership of two very large international corporations; all discussed in detail below.
Americans in A.D. 2023 have little of any understanding of the history of the prison complex; its history including importation of it into the American colonies. To truly understand what follows in this Essay, it is strongly suggested these four entries from
Wikipedia should be read first: Marshalsea (fn.[1]) Debtor’s Prisons, Indentured Servitude in British America (fn.[2]), and Debt Bondage (Peonage) (fn.[3]) It will provide a context for the present day Cartel of the Empire’s continuation of trafficking of adults, children, and other illicit treatment of organ harvesting and drug trade.
“Indentured servitude in British America was the prominent system of labor in the British American colonies until it was eventually supplanted by slavery.
[1] During its time, the system was so prominent that more than half of all immigrants to British colonies south of New England were white servants, and that nearly half of total white immigration to the Thirteen Colonies came under indenture.[2]
By the beginning of the American Revolutionary War in 1775, only 2 to 3 percent of the colonial labor force was composed of indentured servants.[3] … Fraud and sometimes even force were widely used as methods of recruitment.[7] A debt peonage system similar to indenture was also used in southern New England and Long Island to control and assimilate Native Americans from the 1600s through the American Revolution.[8]” (fn.[4])
“Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery, bonded labour, or peonage, is the pledge of a person's services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. Where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated, the person who holds the debt has thus some control over the laborer, whose freedom depends on the undefined debt repayment.[1] The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined, thus allowing the person supposedly owed the debt to demand services indefinitely.[2] Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.[2] …
During the colonial history of the United States, persons bonded themselves to an owner who paid their passage to the New World. They worked until the debt of passage was paid off, often for years.[15] Debt peonage was practiced as "an illegal form of contemporary slavery... well into the 1950s" in "Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and other parts of the Deep South."
Civil authorities would arrest "colored men off the street and in their homes if they were caught not working," charge them with vagrancy, assess fines equal to several weeks of pickers' pay, and compel them "to pick fruit or cut sugarcane to work off the debt.... Those captured were hauled to remote plantations ..., held by force, and beaten or shot if they tried to escape."[16] …
“Currently, debt bondage is the most common method of enslavement with an estimated 8.1 million people bonded to labour illegally as cited by the International Labour Organization in 2005.[3]
Debt bondage has been described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery"and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery seeks to abolish the practice.[2][4][5] … A 1994 report of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand reports compulsory indebtedness is common for girls in forced prostitution, especially those transported across the border.
They are forced to work off their debt, often with 100 percent interest, and to pay for their room, food and other items. In addition to debt bondage, the women and girls face a wide range of abuses, including illegal confinement; forced labor; rape; physical abuse; and more.[44] … The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that $51.2 billion is made annually in the exploitation of workers through debt bondage.[45]
Though the employers actively take part in accruing the debt of laborers, buyers of products and services in the country of manufacturing and abroad also contribute to the profitability of this practice.[6] Global supply chains that deliver goods throughout the world are most likely tainted with slave labor. The reason for this includes convoluted supply chain management that crosses many international borders, ineffective labor laws, corporates claiming plausible deniability, global political-economic restructuring and well-intended consumers.” (fn.[5])
Marshalsea debtor’s prison in England was founded in A.D. 1343 and continued in existence through 1842.
CONTINUE TO PART B
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
“UNALIENABLE” vs the “NEOLIGISM” OF “INALIENABLE” RIGHTS
Researching over the past three years for a historical novel (in draft stage), I investigated primary source documents on subjects in this article; being, among other concepts, and compiled over 2000 pages of notes, quotes and copies of source documents. Readers questions are encouraged and can be provided via email jthayer913 at gmail or posted here in the thread:
1. unalienable rights,
2. utilitarianism mask of welfarism,
3. the British East India Company (controllers of debt Perpetual peonage, and debtor’s prisons),
4. the writings of Lysander Spooner in the 1850’s.
I will attempt to keep this as brief as practical.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
1. unalienable rights,
1891 “Unalienable” in Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed.) versus the post 1891 “neoligism” of “Inalienable” in subsequent editions.
Other than the Bible, Algernon Sydney’s Discourses on Government (A.D. 1704), referred to through this and other Essays was the second most widely read book in the forty years leading up to the American Revolution. Discourses Concerning Government has been called "the textbook of the American revolution."[1][2]. Wikepedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algernon_Sidney
It was spoken of at period leading up to A.D. 1776, as the “textbook of the American Revolution.”
In this Essay, it will be demonstrated the Founders extensively discussed the “first principles” regarding the organization of a new government. He also discussed in detail the, immutable, natural, foundational and unalienable Right to re-constitution of a failing government. Fortunately “first principles” are not like vitamins with an expiration date.
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (cf. ALIEN or ALIENE. p. To transfer or make over to another; to convey or transfer the property of a thing from one person to another; to alienate. Usually applied to the transfer of lands and tenements. Co. Litt. 118; Cowell. Alien an egotia exacto officio gerun tur. The business of another is to be conducted with particular attention. Jones, Baiim.83;79 Pa.St.118. ALIENABLE. Proper to be the subject of alienation or transfer.” cf. Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st ed. 1891.
“UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
“Nemo de domo sua extrahi debet. A citizen cannot be taken by force from his house to be conducted before a judge or to prison. Dig. 50, 17. This maxim in favor of Roman liberty is much the same as that "every man's house is his castle."
A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law by John Bouvier (1856, 6TH Ed.) PUBLIC DOMAIN https://archive.org/details/7817906-bouvier-s-common-law-dictionary
Contrast this with “inalienable rights,” being a post 1891 neologism (wholly fabricated):
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. – Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
The nuance is one can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights … if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. This assertion from the link below must be verified state by state from original archive documents and not reprints.
Immutable: Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. The laws of nature are unchangeable. Maxims of Law Recorded by John Bouvier in “A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law” John Bouvier (1856): Maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur. A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all. Co. Litt. 11.” Bouvier, A Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856), supra.
By what we designate the Law of Nature, the Roman jurists understood the rules by which all living beings were governed: "Quod natura omnia animalia docuit."
The Law of Nations was known to them as Jus Feciale. cf., “The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature if Natural Law and Luxury” (A.D. 1758, repub. Liberty Fund (A.D. 2008) (fn.[1]) by Emer de Vattel (fn. ); Blackstone’s Commentaries, by Sir William Blackstone (VOL. I-V, and Appendix V) (1871)
The Institutes of Gaius c A.D. 132: No lawyer of ancient or modern times has given such a lucid, comprehensive, and eloquent description of the Law of Natureas Cicero. In glowing language, eminently worthy of the distinguished scholar and jurist, he sets forth its constant and universal blessings; a law which summons all to the performance of their duties, and deters the hesitating from the commission of fraud; from whose observance even those highest in authority are not exempt; whose application is universal; whose precepts are eternal and immutable; which cannot be disregarded or abrogated with impunity; of which God is the originator, the interpreter, the proposer; and he who refuses to obey it flees from himself, and rejects the claims of humanity, by this very act rendering himself liable to the severest penalties, even if he be able to escape others which have been prescribed.” "Est quidem vera lex recta ratio, naturæ congruens, diffusa in omnes, conBlans, sempiterna; quæ vocet ad officium jubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat, quæ tamen neque probos frustra jubet aut vetat, neque improbos jubendo aut vetando movet. Huic legi neque obrogari fas est, neque derogari ex hac aliquid licet, neque tota abrogari potest. Nec vero aut per senatum aut per populum solvi hac lege possumus: neque est quærendus explanator aut interpres ejus alius. Nec frit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac; sed et omnes gentes et
Maxims of Law: “legal maxim, a broad proposition (usually stated in a fixed Latin form), a number of which have been used by lawyers since the 17th century or earlier. Some of them can be traced to early Roman law. Much more general in scope than ordinary rules of law, legal maxims commonly formulate a legal policy or ideal that judges are supposed to consider in deciding cases.
Maxims do not normally have the dogmatic authority of statutes and are usually not considered to be law except to the extent of their application in adjudicated cases.
In California some maxims have been incorporated into the civil code; one example is, “Anyone may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit. But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.”
(Thus, an agreement not to invoke the statute of limitations is binding, but an agreement not to plead that a certain contract constitutes an illegal restraint of trade is not.) Several relevant examples include: The law never requires impossibilities”: Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. (Thus, an actor who becomes ill is excused from performing even though his contract does not so state.
Rei turpis nullum mandatum est. A mandate of an illegal thing is void. Dig. 17, 1, 6;
Tout ce que la loi ne defend pas est permis. Everything is permitted, which is not forbidden by law.)”
PART 2 TO FOLLOW
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
PART D OF A-D
[CAVEAT AND NOTICE: There is nothing intended or to be implied here to connect or assiciate what follows regarding the resurrection of the EIC by “name” (or its principals) in 2010 to or with the historical practices of the EIC discussed fron its inception through 1870, when it apparently ceased to exist.
_________
The A.D. 2010 Resurrection of EIC within in the
The British East India Company, under permission given by the British Crown was resurrected and charter in A.D. 2010. “Sanjiv Mehta (born October 1961) is an India-born British businessman. He is the owner of "the East India company", which he launched in 2010, presenting it as a revival of the historic East India Company that was dissolved on 1 June 1874.[1][2][3][4] …Mehta's business also attracted investment from other companies including the India-based Mahindra Group(2011)[17] and the UAE-based Lulu Group (2014).[18] ” (fn.[2]) (Mahindra Group, fn.[3]) (Lulu Group, fn.[4]) Mehta’s involvement and holdings in international trade of diamonds, oil and pharmaceuticals in Russia, steel in England, tea, and luxury space retail cannot be overlooked.
_________
At this point, before proceeding further, let’s take a moment to analyze this for analogies … to the current circumstances Americans are witnessing at every turn in our lives.
What do we know about the birth of mercantilism and its PLAYBOOK implemented by VOC and EIC?
What do we know about that mercantile EIC PLAYBOOK as a “Business Model” which reached such a geographical extent, that it was bigger than nation states; and had their own private armies which fought wars for those nations as mercenaries; wrote laws, and installed judges in cities in which they traded?
What do we now know about debt bondage (peonage); intertwined as an international syndicate operating debtor’s prisons, adult/child slavery, and trafficking?
Did the debt system within England, Europe, and America exist in America before and after the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did the colonies have within them debtor’s prisons before and after the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did unpaid war debts of America, and dire financial conditions of America and Americans arise out of the Revolutionary War? Yes!
Did America’s unpaid war debt increase with the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, the Civil War 1861-1865? Yes! In A.D. 1865-1890, did the national government react and take steps to address the unpaid war debt? Yes!
Debt Bondage
We will begin right there to address each of those questions answered with yes by presenting some historical events, and an analysis brought forward to A.D. 2023 which, over time, will bring some clarity to readers.
END##
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
PART C OF A-D
Freelance writer David Roos has written salient insights into the influence of the British East India Company (EIC) upon the current corporate and legal structure in America and other Western nations entitled: “How the East India Company Became the World’s Most Powerful Monopoly” (fn.[1]):
[EIC’s Rise to Largest Cartel in the World] One of the biggest, most dominant corporations in history operated long before the emergence of tech giants like Apple or Google or Amazon. The English East India Company was incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600 and went on to act as a part-trade organization, part-nation-state and reap vast profits from overseas trade with India, China, Persia and Indonesia for more than two centuries. Its business flooded England with affordable tea, cotton textiles and spices, and richly rewarded its London investors with returns as high as 30 percent.
“At its peak, the English East India Company was by far the largest corporation of its kind,” says Emily Erikson, a sociology professor at Yale University and author of Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company. “It was also larger than several nations. It was essentially the de facto emperor of large portions of India, which was one of the most productive economies in the world at that point.” …
Even though the East India Company was technically a private venture, its royal charter and battle-ready employees gave it political weight. Indian rulers invited local Company bosses to court, extracted bribes from them, and recruited the Company’s muscle in regional warfare, sometimes against French or Dutch trading companies.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
CONTINUE TO PART D
PART B OF A-D
Between the period of A.D. 1300-1850, manipulations of food production and supplies; regulation of supply of currency, artificially managed in a manner to create shortages, famines, community diseases, and inability to pay debts continuously occurred in England. All debtor’s prisons served as locations where prisoners and their families served as profit centers for private business of EIC and others.
“… Eighteenth-century prisons were effectively lodging houses. Poorly maintained and often filthy, they might consist of a couple of rooms in a cellar.
Before the Gaols Act 1823, then the Prisons Act 1835 and the Prison Act 1877, they were administered by the royal household, the aristocracy and the bishops, and run for profit by private individuals who bought the right to manage and make money from them.[19]
Prisoners had to pay rent, feed and clothe themselves and, in the larger prisons, furnish their rooms. One man found not guilty at trial in 1669 was not released because he owed prison fees from his pre-trial confinement, a position supported by the judge, Matthew Hale.[21]
Jailers sold food or let out space for others to open shops; the Marshalsea contained several shops and small restaurants.[22] Prisoners with no money or external support faced starvation. If the prison did supply food to its non-paying inmates, it was purchased with charitable donations—donations sometimes siphoned off by the jailers—usually bread and water with a small amount of meat, or something confiscated as unfit for human consumption.[22]
Jailers would load prisoners with fetters and other iron, then charge for their removal, known as "easement of irons" (or "choice of irons"); this became known as the "trade of chains".[23] (fn.[6])
[1] Marshalsea prison: Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalsea
[2] Indentured Servitude in British America:
Wikipedia -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_British_America
[3] Debt Bondage (Peonage): Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
[4] Indentured Servitude in British America:
Wikipedia -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_British_America
[5] Debt Bondage (Peonage):
Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
[6] Debtor’s Prison: Wikipedia- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalsea#cite_ref-22
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
CONTINUE TO PART C
_________
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
3. the British East India Company (controllers of debt Perpetual peonage, and debtor’s prisons),
PART A OF A-D
Some archive records indicate the British Debtor’s Prison Cartel was purchased (c. A.D. mid-1500’s) from the Crown authorizing by charter for private profiteering, in order to pay off war debts of England. Although EIC’s charter ended in A.D. 1882, EIC was recently resurrected in A.D. 2010 by a group of English businessmen with investment and ownership of two very large international corporations; all discussed in detail below.
Americans in A.D. 2023 have little of any understanding of the history of the prison complex; its history including importation of it into the American colonies. To truly understand what follows in this Essay, it is strongly suggested these four entries from
Wikipedia should be read first: Marshalsea (fn.[1]) Debtor’s Prisons, Indentured Servitude in British America (fn.[2]), and Debt Bondage (Peonage) (fn.[3]) It will provide a context for the present day Cartel of the Empire’s continuation of trafficking of adults, children, and other illicit treatment of organ harvesting and drug trade.
“Indentured servitude in British America was the prominent system of labor in the British American colonies until it was eventually supplanted by slavery.
[1] During its time, the system was so prominent that more than half of all immigrants to British colonies south of New England were white servants, and that nearly half of total white immigration to the Thirteen Colonies came under indenture.[2]
By the beginning of the American Revolutionary War in 1775, only 2 to 3 percent of the colonial labor force was composed of indentured servants.[3] … Fraud and sometimes even force were widely used as methods of recruitment.[7] A debt peonage system similar to indenture was also used in southern New England and Long Island to control and assimilate Native Americans from the 1600s through the American Revolution.[8]” (fn.[4])
“Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery, bonded labour, or peonage, is the pledge of a person's services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. Where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated, the person who holds the debt has thus some control over the laborer, whose freedom depends on the undefined debt repayment.[1] The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined, thus allowing the person supposedly owed the debt to demand services indefinitely.[2] Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.[2] …
During the colonial history of the United States, persons bonded themselves to an owner who paid their passage to the New World. They worked until the debt of passage was paid off, often for years.[15] Debt peonage was practiced as "an illegal form of contemporary slavery... well into the 1950s" in "Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and other parts of the Deep South."
Civil authorities would arrest "colored men off the street and in their homes if they were caught not working," charge them with vagrancy, assess fines equal to several weeks of pickers' pay, and compel them "to pick fruit or cut sugarcane to work off the debt.... Those captured were hauled to remote plantations ..., held by force, and beaten or shot if they tried to escape."[16] …
“Currently, debt bondage is the most common method of enslavement with an estimated 8.1 million people bonded to labour illegally as cited by the International Labour Organization in 2005.[3]
Debt bondage has been described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery"and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery seeks to abolish the practice.[2][4][5] … A 1994 report of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand reports compulsory indebtedness is common for girls in forced prostitution, especially those transported across the border.
They are forced to work off their debt, often with 100 percent interest, and to pay for their room, food and other items. In addition to debt bondage, the women and girls face a wide range of abuses, including illegal confinement; forced labor; rape; physical abuse; and more.[44] … The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that $51.2 billion is made annually in the exploitation of workers through debt bondage.[45]
Though the employers actively take part in accruing the debt of laborers, buyers of products and services in the country of manufacturing and abroad also contribute to the profitability of this practice.[6] Global supply chains that deliver goods throughout the world are most likely tainted with slave labor. The reason for this includes convoluted supply chain management that crosses many international borders, ineffective labor laws, corporates claiming plausible deniability, global political-economic restructuring and well-intended consumers.” (fn.[5])
Marshalsea debtor’s prison in England was founded in A.D. 1343 and continued in existence through 1842.
CONTINUE TO PART B
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
_________
“UNALIENABLE” vs the “NEOLIGISM” OF “INALIENABLE” RIGHTS
Researching over the past three years for a historical novel (in draft stage), I investigated primary source documents on subjects in this article; being, among other concepts, and compiled over 2000 pages of notes, quotes and copies of source documents. Readers questions are encouraged and can be provided via email jthayer913 at gmail or posted here in the thread:
1. unalienable rights,
2. utilitarianism mask of welfarism,
3. the British East India Company (controllers of debt Perpetual peonage, and debtor’s prisons),
4. the writings of Lysander Spooner in the 1850’s.
Each will be provided in 4 separate responses to save space on Substack. Relevant mere snippets are given for consideration. These responses follow also on responses I offered to https://open.substack.com/pub/thedukereport/p/the-venetian-virus-how-england-was?r=19ia12&utm_medium=ios
I will attempt to keep this as brief as practical.
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.
1. unalienable rights,
1891 “Unalienable” in Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed.) versus the post 1891 “neoligism” of “Inalienable” in subsequent editions.
Other than the Bible, Algernon Sydney’s Discourses on Government (A.D. 1704), referred to through this and other Essays was the second most widely read book in the forty years leading up to the American Revolution. Discourses Concerning Government has been called "the textbook of the American revolution."[1][2]. Wikepedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algernon_Sidney
It was spoken of at period leading up to A.D. 1776, as the “textbook of the American Revolution.”
In this Essay, it will be demonstrated the Founders extensively discussed the “first principles” regarding the organization of a new government. He also discussed in detail the, immutable, natural, foundational and unalienable Right to re-constitution of a failing government. Fortunately “first principles” are not like vitamins with an expiration date.
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (cf. ALIEN or ALIENE. p. To transfer or make over to another; to convey or transfer the property of a thing from one person to another; to alienate. Usually applied to the transfer of lands and tenements. Co. Litt. 118; Cowell. Alien an egotia exacto officio gerun tur. The business of another is to be conducted with particular attention. Jones, Baiim.83;79 Pa.St.118. ALIENABLE. Proper to be the subject of alienation or transfer.” cf. Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st ed. 1891.
“UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
“Nemo de domo sua extrahi debet. A citizen cannot be taken by force from his house to be conducted before a judge or to prison. Dig. 50, 17. This maxim in favor of Roman liberty is much the same as that "every man's house is his castle."
A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law by John Bouvier (1856, 6TH Ed.) PUBLIC DOMAIN https://archive.org/details/7817906-bouvier-s-common-law-dictionary
Contrast this with “inalienable rights,” being a post 1891 neologism (wholly fabricated):
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. – Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
The nuance is one can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights … if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. This assertion from the link below must be verified state by state from original archive documents and not reprints.
https://constitutionalconventions.ca/2021/01/21/unalienable-rights-vs-inalienable-rights-unalienable-rights/
Immutable: Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. The laws of nature are unchangeable. Maxims of Law Recorded by John Bouvier in “A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law” John Bouvier (1856): Maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur. A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all. Co. Litt. 11.” Bouvier, A Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856), supra.
By what we designate the Law of Nature, the Roman jurists understood the rules by which all living beings were governed: "Quod natura omnia animalia docuit."
The Law of Nations was known to them as Jus Feciale. cf., “The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature if Natural Law and Luxury” (A.D. 1758, repub. Liberty Fund (A.D. 2008) (fn.[1]) by Emer de Vattel (fn. ); Blackstone’s Commentaries, by Sir William Blackstone (VOL. I-V, and Appendix V) (1871)
The Institutes of Gaius c A.D. 132: No lawyer of ancient or modern times has given such a lucid, comprehensive, and eloquent description of the Law of Natureas Cicero. In glowing language, eminently worthy of the distinguished scholar and jurist, he sets forth its constant and universal blessings; a law which summons all to the performance of their duties, and deters the hesitating from the commission of fraud; from whose observance even those highest in authority are not exempt; whose application is universal; whose precepts are eternal and immutable; which cannot be disregarded or abrogated with impunity; of which God is the originator, the interpreter, the proposer; and he who refuses to obey it flees from himself, and rejects the claims of humanity, by this very act rendering himself liable to the severest penalties, even if he be able to escape others which have been prescribed.” "Est quidem vera lex recta ratio, naturæ congruens, diffusa in omnes, conBlans, sempiterna; quæ vocet ad officium jubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat, quæ tamen neque probos frustra jubet aut vetat, neque improbos jubendo aut vetando movet. Huic legi neque obrogari fas est, neque derogari ex hac aliquid licet, neque tota abrogari potest. Nec vero aut per senatum aut per populum solvi hac lege possumus: neque est quærendus explanator aut interpres ejus alius. Nec frit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac; sed et omnes gentes et
[1] Vattel Laws of Nations&c. – https://libertyfund.org
Maxims of Law: “legal maxim, a broad proposition (usually stated in a fixed Latin form), a number of which have been used by lawyers since the 17th century or earlier. Some of them can be traced to early Roman law. Much more general in scope than ordinary rules of law, legal maxims commonly formulate a legal policy or ideal that judges are supposed to consider in deciding cases.
Maxims do not normally have the dogmatic authority of statutes and are usually not considered to be law except to the extent of their application in adjudicated cases.
In California some maxims have been incorporated into the civil code; one example is, “Anyone may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit. But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.”
(Thus, an agreement not to invoke the statute of limitations is binding, but an agreement not to plead that a certain contract constitutes an illegal restraint of trade is not.) Several relevant examples include: The law never requires impossibilities”: Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. (Thus, an actor who becomes ill is excused from performing even though his contract does not so state.
Rei turpis nullum mandatum est. A mandate of an illegal thing is void. Dig. 17, 1, 6;
Tout ce que la loi ne defend pas est permis. Everything is permitted, which is not forbidden by law.)”
PART 2 TO FOLLOW
CRITICAL THINKING AND VERIFICATION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.