Tag Archives: Creole

Requiem for Pierre Gustave-Toutant Beauregard

Sundown We Remember

The nation and your state might have forgotten
Their favorite Son of New Orleans

As True Southerners, we will
Never teach our children to admit that their fathers’ were wrong in their efforts to maintain the sovereignty, freedom, and independence which was their birthright

As True Southerners, we will not forget the honorable American Veteran standing here
PTG Beauregard
Not only a Soldier and Son but
A bridge maker of diversity

Last Tribute”
“Oh! Of him, we can say with all frankness,
At all time we found a truly beautiful judgment
For the humble veteran, for the widow subjected
To the blows of hard destiny, striking without regard!
Noble, great, generous: during his long life
Never the fatal venom of any dark suspicion
Could even caress his glory, his genius,
That gave him a divine prestige.
Tender husband, good soldier, and Creole knight,
His name, saintly balm to the hearts of Louisianans,
Will always shine, as the sun’s halo
That left a pure sky shine and never die
In the grave where rests a magnanimous warrior,
Near his dead companions the brave soldiers,
I come her to deposit for all a pledge of esteem
A modest laurel to your noble passing

Rest easy Nobel Son we will carry on

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.

Carrie Luft’s Extraordinary First Amended Complaint Allowed in the Middle District of Florida

Magistrate Judge Sherri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sitting in Fort Myers has made me feel like Peter Pan: She’s made me want to crow:  “I’m just the cleverest fellow ’twas ever my pleasure to know!”   Magistrate Judge Chappell has also given Carrie Luft an extraordinary chance to litigate some unique questions of first impression in the USA, such as whether the USA needs a CIVIL Constitutional Writ equivalent to Habeas Corpus, for which I have suggested here (as I have been advocating, on-and-off now, for twenty years) the adoption of the Mexican Constitutional Writ of Amparo:

06-15-2012 First Amended Complaint Carrie Luft 06-15-2012

06-15-2012 Affidavit of Mario Kenny 06-15-2012

The Juicio de Amparo (which can be only VERY roughly translated into English as a “Writ of Prohibition”) enshrined in the Constitution of Mexico is a Constitutional Proceeding with the full force and effect of a CIVIL Writ of Habeas Corpus such as has never existed in the United States.  Historically, this writ originated and was designed by the early 19th century revolutionary Creole (Hispanic White, First generation Colonial) jurists of my “second home” state of Yucatán, so strangely aligned from the late 1830s onward through Ernesto de Zavala (born in Ticul, Yucatán) with my “first home” state of Texas.  Of course, it was neither Zavala who authored the Texas Declaration of Independence and gave his name to the State Archives building in Austin nor the famous Editor of the three great “incunabular” press journals of Southeastern Mexico, El Fenix de Yucatán, El Museo Yucateco, and the Registro de Yucatán, namely Justo Sierra O’Reilly who solicited Congress to admit Yucatán as a State in the 1840s.  Rather it was a figure even less well-known to even to the well-educated American, by the Manuel Crescencio García Rejón, born in Bolonchenticul, Yucatán, a small town now renamed in his honour Bolonchén de Rejón, in the (now separate Mexican) State of Campeche and across the Puuc (Hill Country of Yucatán) from Ticul itself where Zavala was born.

Bolonchen means “Nine Wells” in Yucatec Maya. The number nine is quite mystically intriguing here, being, however coincidentally, not only the number of levels of Hell in both the Maya Underworld of Xibalbá and Dante’s Inferno, but also the number of justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court…. It was the Nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger Taney, whose theory of Constitutional review by judicial procedure so thoroughly impressed and influenced this heroic Hispanic jurist whose name should become famous in the United States of America:

Manuel Crescencio García Rejón

1799-1849

A Great Mexican Constitutionalist and Yucatec Creole Nationalist

I feel strangely certain that if telephones or the internet had existed in the 1830s and 40s, the provincial creole patriots of Yucatán, introduced through Ernesto de Zavala and Justo Sierra O’Reilly, would have thoroughly made friends with John Caldwell Calhoun, Chief Justice Taney, and the other great Southern Constitutionalists of that time, and that Mérida would have become the Southern terminus of a cross-Gulf commerce linked to Galveston, Mobile, and New Orleans in a “Greater South” including all of Mexico after 1848.  In light of subsequent history, in light of the likely union of our countries within the next hundred years, it cannot be said that it would have been so bad for all this to happen a century and a half ago.  For one thing the Creole and Native American Mexicans would never have had to suffer the indignities and inferior status to which they have been relegated by the strangely “colonialist” policies which resulted from the United States’ FAILURE or REFUSAL to integrate Mexico in 1848…. the Hacendados of Mexico would have aligned themselves naturally with the Plantation Owners of the South and the large Indian populations would have had MORE protection under American Constitutional Law than they had under MOST of Mexican history–but all this is a terrible digression from Carrie Luft’s Crusade against the Corruption in Florida Courts (although it is a corruption echoing Miami’s status as “the Capital of Latin America” and Florida’s status, with Louisiana, as the Northernmost Banana Republic…..

I reiterate, we NEED your responses to Carrie’s survey, and so far we have gotten VERY FEW:  06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

Please circulate this all around and return to one of us, either to Carrie directly or to me c/o Peyton Yates Freiman at our “Home Office” of 603 Elmwood Place, #6, Austin, Texas 78705 or to me at Mid-Cities Escrow in Downey:

MID-CITIES ESCROW, Charles Edward Lincoln, III CEO & Director,

10890 Paramount Blvd., Downey, CA 90241, (562) 861-2251 facsimile.

or by e-mail here to this blog!

March 6, 2011—Remember the Alamo! (and Goliad too!)

What more can anyone say?  “Remember the Alamo and Goliad too!” My grandparents Helen and Alphonse Meyer took me to visit the Alamo as almost the first thing to do in Texas when I arrived to live with them in Dallas, Texas after my parents split up.  This move was the first extremely strange transition in my life: my maternal grandmother Helen and her butler named Kermit went to pick me up and take me from my parents, whom my grandparents considered to be neglecting me.   This was in 1966, long before the State of Texas made its is business to interfere in every possible event in every family’s life.  And as unorthodox as this method of making child-custody transfer might sound to the modern reader, it might possibly have been the case that my parents were in fact neglecting me because my mother only showed up in Dallas quite a bit later, not having noticed my absence for sometime.  Anyhow, all of this happened the summer after I turned six.

And so it was then that “Remember the Alamo” became the first “Patriotic Slogan” I ever remember learning.  I obviously had already learned “God Save the Queen” first, but I was very young and don’t remember actually learning that particular salute.  But I do remember my grandparents teaching me to Cheer outloud “Remember the Alamo” although I’m not sure where I was supposed to use this cheer or to whom I was supposed to address it.  I recall my grandfather, “Al”, stopped the family at some particularly significant place around the Alamo and led us in a private family prayer for the fallen heroes.

Though himself the grandson of a British peer of the realm, my grandfather was born in Galveston and steeped in Texas history and patriotism. In his opinion, he insisted it was just as important, if not more so, to remember Colonel Fannin and the March 27 massacre at Goliad as it was to remember the Alamo, because more men died at Goliad, and they died more brutally, having been executed in cold blood.  So this initial tour of South Texas in 1966 also included a trip to Goliad and finally to the San Jacinto Battlefield and the Battleship Texas.

But unlike William Barret Travis’ “I am besieged…I have sustained continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man….I shall never surrender or retreat” February 24, 1836 letter from the Alamo, Colonel Fannin had left no eloquent written testimonial to pass down and post on the library wall.  Nor have dozens of movies been made about Fannin and Goliad, certainly nothing like John Wayne’s “The Alamo“.  This great mythical movie (historians say not a single scene in the picture can be directly related to any document-based “fact”) was completed and released the year I was born in Texas (1960) on October 24, which just happened to be the day my parents arrived in London on the Queen Mary.  This particular cinematic extravaganza just happened to have been made in Texas ONLY over John Wayne’s efforts and objections.

Happy Shahan was a rancher in southern Texas [Wayne’s team constructed an “Alamo Village” near Brackettville in Kinney County, on the old “Camino Real” between San Antonio and El Paso, just a few miles from the Rio Grande and Mexican Border]. ….  [Shahan’s] big break came when he secured The Alamo (1960).  John Wayne had originally decided to make the film in Mexico where he owned land. However, it quickly became apparent he would face a boycott from the Daughters of the Republic and it was politically expedient to make the film in Texas (Rothel, 1990: 13-15).  http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/mgt/research/working-papers/2006/wp36-06.pdf

It is one of those passing ironies of the interaction of history and myth that Wayne wanted and originally planned to film his Epic of Texas Independence in the State of Durango, Mexico, which to Wayne at least and the other producers looked much more like Texas “should” have looked in 1836 than Texas in recent times ever could have looked.  John Wayne also owned a ranch in Durango and made several other films there.  The point is that the reenactment of history is a matter of politically powerful myth—and apparently the Daughters of the Republic of Texas believed that to make a movie about the Alamo in Mexico would somehow be “taboo”—even though Wayne certainly would have been right in pointing out that, of course, when the Battle of the Alamo was fought, and for the three hundred years preceding the siege, Texas had been politically and legally defined (in European law and cartography at least) as part of Mexico—first as part of the the Viceroyalty of New Spain, then as part of the Empire and finally the Republic of Mexico).

There is some unfortunate documentation in the record of diaries left by certain Mexican officers that Davie Crockett in particular and other nearly legendary heroes may not have died quite as heroically as portrayed in the movies, but the simple truth is that the Texas Revolution started to defend the Mexican Constitution of 1823, and the defenders of the Alamo flew a flag to prove that point.  In 1836 there was no conflict between Anglo and Hispanic (Mexican) Creoles in Texas—there was only a conflict between dictatorship and Democratic-Republican Government.  Any modern attempt to recast the Texas revolution as an Anglo-Hispanic race-oriented dispute have to deal with the fact that the Texas Declaration of Independence was written by the Tecoh, Yucatan-born Mexican Statesman Ernesto de Zavala and that Texas and Yucatan both separated from Santa Ana’s Mexico and formed an independent alliance—and although both Yucatan and Texas applied for U.S. Statehood, somewhat tragically, only Texas was admitted.  Yucatan Governor Justo Sierra O’Reilly made the mistake of trying to seek admission for Yucatan as a “free” state—despite the existence of a Plantation economy throughout the Peninsula—and the South at the point relied much too heavily on the Missouri Compromise of 1820 *(later declared unconstitutional in Scott v. Sanford, 1857) and did not wish to allow “free” states both south and north of the Dixie Heartland.  The Yucatan Peninsula would have made a fine addition to the United States, and the Yucatec Creoles and Maya an amazing enrichment of the United States population (both White and Native American).   It is easy to see how the outcome of the war of 1861-65 would have been different, if it had happened at all, had Yucatan been part of the Confederacy….instead of the most pro-Imperial province of the Hapsburg Emperor Maxmillian’s shortlived “Imperio Mexicano”.

Ernesto Zavala’s house in Merida still bears a plaque celebrating the historical contacts between Texas and Yucatan and is preserved as a historic landmark.  In Texas, there is not only a “Zavala” County but also a building on the Texas State Capitol grounds, just southeast of the South Facing domed statehouse, named after him, the Zavala building—it is the State Archive and Historical Records building.  During the Short-Lived Republic of Yucatan, which declared its independence (without bloodshed) in 1838, two years after Texas, Texas and Yucatan jointly developed a very small Naval force to patrol the Gulf of Mexico between Galveston and Progresso.

Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s travel to Washington applying for admission to the Union is the subject of quite a bit of writing in Mexico, and he is a controversial figure in that he was seeking (among other things) a U.S. alliance against the Maya uprising known as “The Caste War of Yucatan”.  Yucatan’s separatism from Mexico preceded the U.S. War with Mexico in 1846-48, but Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s interest in seeing Yucatan admitted continued even after the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo confirmed the transfer of California, Texas, New Mexico, what is now Arizona, Nevada, and Utah to the United States in 1848.  Yucatan was officially neutral in the war with the United States but many in Sierra O’Reilly’s position supported full annexation and integration, even while the stars and stripes flew over Chapultepec Castle under the immediate intendency and command of one Colonel Robert E. Lee, nephew of a signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  Some Mexicans regard Sierra O’Reilly as a traitor like Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr in the U.S., but those who fly the (suppressed) flag of the independent Republic of Yucatan regard him as a hero.  Justo Sierra O’Reilly wrote a very disappointed “Impresiones de un Viaje a los Estados Unidos e Canada” which used to be and probably still is in print in Yucatan, although I haven’t noticed it on the bookstore shelves in recent years.   Yucatan’s separatist tendencies survived a long time after O’Reilly.  Empress Carlotta, even in her madness later in life, recalled the especially warm welcome she and her ill-fated husband received in Yucatan, and there was an active separatist movement in Yucatan as late as the 1960s.

One could say that the de facto annexation of Cancun and the East Coast of Quintana Roo as an American colony (at least during Spring break, but for most of the winter tourist season) starting in 1971 was the final death blow to Yucatec separatism—in that one can now hear significantly more English spoken on the streets and beaches of Cancun than one can on the streets of Miami or Miami Beach…