Political Crossfire Forums

[Jehan]

It's funny watching this thread, and I have plenty of time on my hands. Seeing as it just so happens I am working on the Constitution in history class, I might as well get to work dismantling all this garbage that's being believed by the resident minianarchists. So, without further ado:

Why the Articles of Confederation was a bucket of horse feces

As we all know, in 1776, a bunch of pissed colonists met in Philadelphia, where they declared that they were a free nation, gave some reasons to do so, and then signed the paper saying so. That is the Declaration of Independence.

Now, declaring independence is great, but it means absolutely nothing if you can't win it. The American Revolution was one of the first successful rebellions of a colony against its European mother country. After 8 years of war, American finally defeated Great Britain when George Washington wiped Cornwallis across the wall at Yorktown. So now we have a treaty signed by some guys in Paris that says America is a free nation (a treaty both sides pissed on, but that's for another time). Now, we've got a nation. How the hell do we govern it?

The answer was the Articles of Confederation. Proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1777, it languished in Congress before finally being ratified in 1783. The shortfalls of this document loomed higher than the Himalayas.

Sure, there was a Congress, and a government, but its power was laughable. It could coin money, but because of all the debts there was not a hint of precious metal, and this currency became worthless. As a result, the individual states began printing their own money, and 13 different currencies did nothing to help the already struggling economy. There was no executive and no national judiciary, which made a huge problem for the Congress. Congress could pass laws, but they had to be approved by nine states. Not to mention, the central government could not enforce the laws, and as such any attempt for this Congress to solve any problems was laughable. Congress could not regulate trade or levy taxes, which means it had no way of paying back the enormous debts that had created the credit mess that was ruining the economy. In times of war, the Federal government could only appoint the generals, with Colonel and below being chosen by-you guessed it-the states.

In summation, there was no true central authority with any real power. At that time, the US was not a country; it was 13 little nation states that did as they pleased. While an unrealistic anarchist might have a field day with the idea, most people had retrieved their minds from the clouds and realized that we needed change by the time of the Philadelphia convention.

Plenty of foreigners had reached this conclusion, too. Great Britain refused to pull out of their forts they held in the West, as per required by the Treaty of Paris. Spain, who had lost patience with America's inability to pay them back the money America owed, sealed off New Orleans to America, a gigantic blow to western farmers who relied on the port as a market for their crops.

However, most people did their best to ignore the troubles and try and get on with their lives, which was rather hard to do for Massachusetts farmers who were having their lands seized because the credit mess made it hard for them to pay for the debts they owed (seeing as there was no money to speak of). As a result, many farmers grew angry and began to shut down the local courts in protest. Soon, they rallied behind Daniel Shays, a man who had been a captain in the Massachusetts militia during the war. They in turn led a march on the arsenal at Springfield, where local militia defeated the Shays forces.

News of the events spread quickly. People began to realize that their new government had no army to stop rebellion. Some feared that if more rebellions broke out, the government would have no way to stop them. Others worried that if invaded, America would crumble.

In 1786, delegates from a handful of states gathered in Annapolis to discuss trade issues. Although the convention was a failure, it did recommend another Convention to revise the Articles.

So, in 1787, delegates from 12 states (Rhode Island did not attend) met in Philadelphia to revise the Articles, but the 55 men wisely realized what trash it was and decided to write a new Constitution. Although it had its flaws the new government guided and continues to guide the US of A.

In conclusion, while the mini (and even smaller) anarchists who populate this site might take up the AoC as the Holy Grail, the rest of us understand that America's first government failed and did so spectacularly.

[Jehan]

Double post

[tictactactical]

Bravo Jehan! :-D

[Meldric Gorfyddyd]

Because the Articles of whatever are just conditions for a league of "frendships", while the USC is unifying them into a naton, with much stronger terms. :bnghd:

[Quicksurf]

It's not possible to have a unified country without a centralized government. It wouldn't work back then, and it won't work now.

[EugenicHegemony]

Jehan wrote: It's funny watching this thread, and I have plenty of time on my hands. Seeing as it just so happens I am working on the Constitution in history class, I might as well get to work dismantling all this garbage that's being believed by the resident minianarchists. So, without further ado:

Why the Articles of Confederation was a bucket of horse feces

As we all know, in 1776, a bunch of pissed colonists met in Philadelphia, where they declared that they were a free nation, gave some reasons to do so, and then signed the paper saying so. That is the Declaration of Independence.

Now, declaring independence is great, but it means absolutely nothing if you can't win it. The American Revolution was one of the first successful rebellions of a colony against its European mother country. After 8 years of war, American finally defeated Great Britain when George Washington wiped Cornwallis across the wall at Yorktown. So now we have a treaty signed by some guys in Paris that says America is a free nation (a treaty both sides pissed on, but that's for another time). Now, we've got a nation. How the hell do we govern it?

The answer was the Articles of Confederation. Proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1777, it languished in Congress before finally being ratified in 1783. The shortfalls of this document loomed higher than the Himalayas.

Sure, there was a Congress, and a government, but its power was laughable. It could coin money, but because of all the debts there was not a hint of precious metal, and this currency became worthless. As a result, the individual states began printing their own money, and 13 different currencies did nothing to help the already struggling economy. There was no executive and no national judiciary, which made a huge problem for the Congress. Congress could pass laws, but they had to be approved by nine states. Not to mention, the central government could not enforce the laws, and as such any attempt for this Congress to solve any problems was laughable. Congress could not regulate trade or levy taxes, which means it had no way of paying back the enormous debts that had created the credit mess that was ruining the economy. In times of war, the Federal government could only appoint the generals, with Colonel and below being chosen by-you guessed it-the states.

In summation, there was no true central authority with any real power. At that time, the US was not a country; it was 13 little nation states that did as they pleased. While an unrealistic anarchist might have a field day with the idea, most people had retrieved their minds from the clouds and realized that we needed change by the time of the Philadelphia convention.

Plenty of foreigners had reached this conclusion, too. Great Britain refused to pull out of their forts they held in the West, as per required by the Treaty of Paris. Spain, who had lost patience with America's inability to pay them back the money America owed, sealed off New Orleans to America, a gigantic blow to western farmers who relied on the port as a market for their crops.

However, most people did their best to ignore the troubles and try and get on with their lives, which was rather hard to do for Massachusetts farmers who were having their lands seized because the credit mess made it hard for them to pay for the debts they owed (seeing as there was no money to speak of). As a result, many farmers grew angry and began to shut down the local courts in protest. Soon, they rallied behind Daniel Shays, a man who had been a captain in the Massachusetts militia during the war. They in turn led a march on the arsenal at Springfield, where local militia defeated the Shays forces.

News of the events spread quickly. People began to realize that their new government had no army to stop rebellion. Some feared that if more rebellions broke out, the government would have no way to stop them. Others worried that if invaded, America would crumble.

In 1786, delegates from a handful of states gathered in Annapolis to discuss trade issues. Although the convention was a failure, it did recommend another Convention to revise the Articles.

So, in 1787, delegates from 12 states (Rhode Island did not attend) met in Philadelphia to revise the Articles, but the 55 men wisely realized what trash it was and decided to write a new Constitution. Although it had its flaws the new government guided and continues to guide the US of A.

In conclusion, while the mini (and even smaller) anarchists who populate this site might take up the AoC as the Holy Grail, the rest of us understand that America's first government failed and did so spectacularly.

It didn't "fail" at all; it just didn't have any control, or power over sovereign city states. That's a good thing. I also don't know any anarchists who like the AOC either, so I don't know where you're getting your info. Glad to see the U.S. uneducation system is setting you straight. Keep listening, and obey their national communist compulsory garbage.

[Green]

""The Articles of Confederation are very simply the weaker document. These were poorly thought out and almost led to the new America to break apart. The constitution served as the glue required to bind us back together. So in this way The Articles of Confederation can not be considered the stronger document.""
-- well said

The articles of confederation were too weak and the states were acting as seperate countries. Europeans were about to take over and the country was sliding into anarchy. The Constitution saved the country.

[EugenicHegemony]

Green wrote: ""The Articles of Confederation are very simply the weaker document. These were poorly thought out and almost led to the new America to break apart. The constitution served as the glue required to bind us back together. So in this way The Articles of Confederation can not be considered the stronger document.""
-- well said

The articles of confederation were too weak and the states were acting as seperate countries. Europeans were about to take over and the country was sliding into anarchy. The Constitution saved the country. That's a nice narrow minded opinion, and that's all it is.

[mojo]

Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

[Katsumoto]

politicalmojo wrote: Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

The AOC "worked" just not in the ways that those who desired a centralized state wished.

[Clara Listensprechen]

EugenicHegemony wrote: 10thJustice wrote:
The source of a right has one practical purpose. If rights come from the state then that state can amend or abolish that right. If a right comes from some more exotic source then the states, the courts, congress nor the president can deprive you of that right.

This onerous central government does as it pleases with any rights it pleases, and we already have the USC.



In violation thereof. The problem is the unitary party system where the majority party is the one the president belongs to and that party refuses to rise to its responsibility and oath to defend the Constitution, making claims like Napoleon the pig did in Animal Farm as to what the Constitution "really" means, in the tried and true fashion of an evangelist "explaining" the "mystery" of questionable scripture and thereby twisting it.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Katsumoto wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

The AOC "worked" just not in the ways that those who desired a centralized state wished.

Confederations failed twice. Before the Constitution and before the Civil War. Should be proof enough of the failures of confederations altogether.

[EugenicHegemony]

Katsumoto wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

The AOC "worked" just not in the ways that those who desired a centralized state wished. Exactly

[Jehan]

Katsumoto wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

The AOC "worked" just not in the ways that those who desired a centralized state wished.

It "worked" like a man who cannot walk can run an Olympic marathon (and not the Special Olympics, either). The biggest power the federal government had was the post office. Everything else was worthless.

[Jehan]

EugenicHegemony wrote: It didn't "fail" at all; it just didn't have any control, or power over sovereign city states. That's a good thing. I also don't know any anarchists who like the AOC either, so I don't know where you're getting your info. Glad to see the U.S. uneducation system is setting you straight. Keep listening, and obey their national communist compulsory garbage.

You are what we call a minianarchist, which is someone who wants as little government as possible, which explains why you prefer the AOC. Furthermore, if you want me to seriously debate you any further, stop trolling and give me some serious points for consideration. "National communist compulsory garbage" and other crap like that is why you got suspended not too long ago.

[EugenicHegemony]

Jehan wrote: Katsumoto wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Do you really think the country would be stronger without the Constitution? We tryed the AOC it didn't work. We picked up ourselves from the shambles of that failed document and created a better one. I really dont see what there is to debate here.

The constitution worked the AOC didn't. Period.

The AOC "worked" just not in the ways that those who desired a centralized state wished.

It "worked" like a man who cannot walk can run an Olympic marathon (and not the Special Olympics, either). The biggest power the federal government had was the post office. Everything else was worthless. Yeah, and that's the way it must be. A central all powerful authority doesn't need to have any power over sovereign states, and never must. That was the whole point of the "Declaration Of Independence". Trading European central authoritarian rule for American, was not the goal. The "Civil War" (orchestrated by the traitorous Federalist Nationalists) took care of that though.

[Jehan]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Yeah, and that's the way it must be. A central all powerful authority doesn't need to have any power over sovereign states, and never must. That was the whole point of the "Declaration Of Independence". Trading European central authoritarian rule for American, was not the goal. The "Civil War" (orchestrated by the traitorous Federalist Nationalists) took care of that though.

Here's the problem, however:

The central government is necessary, believe it or not. 13 little nation states are much easier to overrun than 1 united country. Adolf Hitler or another oppressive dictator could easily have knock over the house of cards you call the government, and then you'd be in a worse fix than under the Constitution.

[EugenicHegemony]

Jehan wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Yeah, and that's the way it must be. A central all powerful authority doesn't need to have any power over sovereign states, and never must. That was the whole point of the "Declaration Of Independence". Trading European central authoritarian rule for American, was not the goal. The "Civil War" (orchestrated by the traitorous Federalist Nationalists) took care of that though.

Here's the problem, however:

The central government is necessary, believe it or not. 13 little nation states are much easier to overrun than 1 united country. Adolf Hitler or another oppressive dictator could easily have knock over the house of cards you call the government, and then you'd be in a worse fix than under the Constitution. Why is that? You unite and fight when only absolutely necessary, and you don't need a central authority to have control of the guns, capital (everything else inbetween) and military power.

[TheCreepyApostate]

leftneckredwing wrote: The Constitution was actually fundamental in the ending of slavery.

The Constitution upheld slavery prior to the 14th Amendment. Slavery was 100% Constitutional and legal.

You also have to remember that slaves were not people, they were property, not covered under the Constitution. "All Men are Created Equal" did not apply to them.

[Jehan]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Why is that? You unite and fight when only absolutely necessary, and you don't need a central authority to have control of the guns, capital (everything else inbetween) and military power.

In this day and age, with the level of sophistication of military technology in the use of armies, a civilian militia can no longer do, unfortunately.