ACT of 1871: The Sovereign Misunderstanding – Debunking the “U.S. is a Corporation” Conspiracy

In the shadowy corners of internet forums, pseudolegal seminars, and alternative history groups, a persistent theory claims that the United States of America is not a sovereign country, but rather a business corporation owned by foreign interests.

The linchpin of this theory is a piece of legislation passed by the 41st Congress: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

According to proponents of this theory…often overlapping with the Sovereign Citizen movement and QAnon…this Act marked the death of the American Republic. They argue that the “original” Constitution was suspended, and a new corporate entity (The United States, Inc.) was created to manage the population as “chattel” or “inventory.” While this narrative offers a seductive, “Da Vinci Code”-style explanation for governmental overreach or personal debt, it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of legal history, definitions of corporate law, and the specific text of the Act itself. 

To understand why the United States remains a Republic, we must dissect the Act of 1871, the historical context in which it was written, and the legal reality of “municipal corporations.” 

Part I: The Historical Context of 1871 

To understand the law, one must understand the era. In 1871, the United States was emerging from the Civil War. Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, was an embarrassment. It was a disorganized collection of unpaved roads, open sewers, and swampy terrain. It was widely considered a provincial backwater compared to European capitals like Paris or London. 

Before 1871, the District of Columbia was governed by a confusing patchwork of distinct entities: the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the Levy Court of the County of Washington. Each had its own charters and administration. This fragmentation made it nearly impossible to implement the massive infrastructure projects needed to modernize the capital. 

Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (officially titled “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia”) not to overthrow the Constitution, but to solve a plumbing and paving problem. The Act consolidated the separate charters of Washington, Georgetown, and the County into a single unified government for the District. 

The goal was administrative efficiency, not treason. The federal government needed a unified local government to pave Pennsylvania Avenue, install gas lines, and manage sewage. 

Part II: The “Body Corporate” Misunderstanding 

The “smoking gun” for conspiracy theorists is found in the text of the Act, which states that the District of Columbia is constituted as: 

“…a body corporate for municipal purposes…” 

Theorists latch onto the word “corporate” as proof that the country was turned into a business (like Walmart or General Motors). This is a linguistic error rooted in a lack of legal literacy regarding the term Municipal Corporation. 

What is a Municipal Corporation? 

In legal terms, almost every city, town, and village in the United States is a “corporation.” When a town is “incorporated,” it becomes a legal entity separate from its inhabitants. This allows the town to: 

1. Own property (like a city hall or a park). 
2. Sue and be sued (if a city garbage truck hits your car, you sue the city, not the driver). 
3. Enter into contracts (hiring a construction company to build a road). 

This status is known as a Municipal Corporation. It is distinct from a Business Corporation. A business corporation exists to generate profit for shareholders. A municipal corporation exists to govern a specific territory and provide public services. 

When the Act of 1871 made D.C. a “body corporate,” it was merely giving the local government of the District the standard legal status held by New York City, Boston, or Chicago. It gave the local D.C. government the legal personhood required to buy concrete and sign payroll checks. 

Crucially, this incorporation applied only to the District of Columbia (the ten-mile square), not the federal government of the United States. 

The theories claim the Act incorporated the federal government. The text of the Act explicitly refutes this. It is titled “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.” It does not mention the federal government, the Executive Branch, or the entirety of the United States claiming to alter their status. 

Part III: The Constitutional Authority 

A major flaw in the conspiracy theory is the question of authority. How could a simple Act of Congress overturn the U.S. Constitution? 

Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress cannot simply vote to turn the Constitution off. For the United States to change from a Constitutional Republic to a Corporate Oligarchy, a Constitutional Amendment would be required. No such amendment exists. 

However, the Constitution does explicitly give Congress the power to do exactly what it did in 1871. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (known as the Enclave Clause) grants Congress the power: 

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…” 

The Act of 1871 was a routine exercise of this specific Constitutional power. Congress utilized its authority to reorganize the local management of the “seat of government.” Far from suspending the Constitution, the Act relies entirely on the Constitution for its validity. 

Part IV: The “All Caps” Fallacy 

A visual component of this theory often involves the capitalization of the country’s name. Theorists argue that “The United States of America” refers to the sovereign Republic, while “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” (in all capital letters) refers to the corporate entity created in 1871. 

They claim that legal documents using all-caps names are contracts with the “corporation,” not the country. 

This argument is purely graphical, not legal. 

• Standardization: All-caps text in legal documents is a formatting standard used for readability and emphasis, particularly in titles, headers, and names of parties in court cases. It originated in the era of typewriters where bolding text was impossible, so capitalization was the only way to emphasize names. 

• The Style Manual: The U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual dictates these capitalization rules. It is a guide for printers and typists, not a code for hidden corporate slavery. 

• Legal Precedent: No court in American history has ever ruled that writing a name in capital letters changes the legal status of the entity or person. 

Part V: The “London and Vatican” Connection 

The theory often expands to claim that this “Corporate US” is financially owned by the City of London (the financial district) and legally subject to the Vatican (Canon Law). 

This stems from a misunderstanding of international loans. The U.S. government has, at times, borrowed money from foreign entities (sovereign debt). However, holding debt does not equate to ownership of the sovereign. If you take a mortgage from a bank, the bank has a lien on your house, but you do not become an employee or a corporation owned by the bank. You remain a free citizen. 

There is no treaty, act, or financial instrument in existence that transfers the sovereignty of the United States to the City of London or the Holy See. Such a transfer would require ratification by the Senate and would be a matter of public record. The “evidence” provided for these claims usually relies on numerology or twisted interpretations of maritime law (Admiralty Law), which does not apply to land-based governance. 

Part VI: The Repeal of 1874 

Perhaps the most damaging fact for the conspiracy theory is that the specific government created by the Act of 1871 was a failure…and it was abolished just three years later. 

The 1871 Act created a territorial government with a Governor and a Legislative Assembly. This government, led by the controversial Alexander “Boss” Shepherd, spent money recklessly on modernizing the city, driving the District into massive debt. 

In response, Congress passed the Act of 1874, which repealed the organic act of 1871. It abolished the territorial government and replaced it with a Board of Commissioners appointed by the President. 

If the Act of 1871 turned the U.S. into a corporation, the Act of 1874 presumably would have turned it back. The conspiracy theory ignores the temporary nature of the 1871 legislation. The “corporation” of the District of Columbia government was reorganized multiple times (most notably by the Home Rule Act of 1973), yet the United States Republic remained unchanged throughout. 

Part VII: Why This Theory Persists 

If the evidence is so clearly against it, why does this theory persist? 

1. Complexity of Language:Legal terminology is dense. Words like “person,” “corporation,” and “incorporate” have specific nuances in law that differ from casual English. Conspiracy theorists exploit this gap between lay definition and legal definition.

2. A “Magic Bullet” for Debt:Many people find this theory through “debt relief”scams. Promoters sell kits claiming that because the U.S. is a corporation, citizens are merely “sureties” for that corporation and can discharge their debts (mortgages, credit cards) by filing documents declaring their “sovereign” status separate from the “corporate strawman.” This is financially ruinous; courts universally reject these arguments, leading to foreclosure and bankruptcy for those who try them. 

3. Distrust of Government:For those who feel disenfranchised, the idea that the government is an illegitimate corporation explains why the system feels rigged. It provides a tangible enemy (the Corporation) and a narrative of hidden truth.

THE USA IS A REPUBLIC!  

The United States of America is a Federal Republic, operating under the Constitution of 1787 and its subsequent amendments. 

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was a municipal charter for the city of Washington. It allowed the city to pave its streets and manage its sewers. It did not, and could not, void the Constitution, sell the citizenry to foreign banks, or transform the sovereign nation into a business subsidiary. 

To believe the Act of 1871 ended the Republic is to confuse the incorporation of a city council with the sale of a nation. The United States remains, as it has been since its founding, a nation of laws, not a line item in a corporate ledger. 

References 

1. The Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. National Archives. 
2. Forty-First Congress. Session III. Ch. 62. (1871). An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia. Library of Congress, Statutes at Large. 
3. Forty-Third Congress. Session I. Ch. 337. (1874). An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Library of Congress. 
4. Garner, B. A. (2019). Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters. (Definition of “Municipal Corporation” vs. “Corporation”). 
5. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600 (1941). Supreme Court ruling distinguishing the United States sovereign entity from the definition of a “person” or “corporation” in the Sherman Act. 
6. Bowling, K. R. (1991). The Creation of Washington, D.C.: The Idea and Location of the American Capital. George Mason University Press. 
7. Mead v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 287 (2008). Federal Court of Claims dismissal of Sovereign Citizen arguments regarding the “corporate” status of the US government. 
8. United States Government Publishing Office. (2016). Style Manual: An Official Guide to the Form and Style of Federal Government Printing. Washington, DC: GPO.