Posted on 05/26/2010 6:10:06 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
America as we see it today is not the same nation as the America in which my parents grew up. It is certainly not the America that was founded over 230 years ago by a group of patriots who had just won a war of liberation against the most powerful monarchy in the world at that time. These changes, this degradation of America, has accelerated in the last 40 years, however, as a moral sea change swept over this land, driven by the purposeful rejection of America's Christian foundations and the system of government that was influenced and established under their auspices.
Let us make no mistake — while America was not founded as a Christian nation in the sense of the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, nevertheless America was a Christian nation at her inception. The entire warp and woof of society was permeated with the biblical worldview. Our Founders, realizing the truth of the Christian doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man, established a government in which power was divided at the federal level between three competing, contrary branches with specifically-defined powers. Further, political power was divided between what was supposed to be a relatively weak federal government and the state governments. The intention underlying this choice was to dilute the ability of any one man or group of people from being able to exercise power, naturally corruptible, over their fellow citizens. This intention, we must understand, was a spiritual and moral one, based upon biblical understandings of the nature of man....
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Many thanks for the additional info and links.
“Further, even if the states retained vastly greater power over the federal government, this merely means that the several states would have been the primary agents of tyranny, rather than the federal government.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. In fact, that was supposed to be the whole point. You argue for national domination. Well, you got it! “
Well, ok, so if the Federal government collapses it might be a good thing?
If the dollar collapses, or whatever catastrophe happens the states apparently could remain viable governmental agencies?
Assuming that we aren’t invaded by a foreign power. Even then would the foreign power have to physically occupy all 50 states?
Just doing some free-thinking here......
I'm saying that back then, in 1787, there was a fork in the road. One side was federalism, where the states would comprise the most vigorous (and therefore dangerous) form of government the people would have to contend with.
On the other side was nationalism, where power would be consolidated, centralized, and declared supreme over all other powers.
IMO, they took the wrong path, but it's water under the bridge now. I discuss it only because I think it's valuable to understand how we got here.
The first glaring point of the debates is that neither Henry nor any anti-federalists ever offered corrections to the awful Articles of Confederation. Henry denied that there were any problems within Virginia under the Articles, a classic lawyer move.
Henry later represented wealthy anti-federalist Virginia planters who had a monetary interest in keeping alive the near anarchy under the Articles. He lost his suit in front of Chief Justice John Jay.
He also thought the British parliamentary system, the system we just revolted against, with a monarch and disproportional representation in Parliament was preferable to the Constitution.
The Articles granted authority, but no power. They lead to Shay's rebellion, talk of other confederacies and even return to allegiance to England among some states. The Articles were no more than treaties among sovereign states who could and did ignore at their will.
The Constitution put the Natural Law philosophy of our founders into practice. The most perfect governing document ever created.
By all means don't take my word or the word of others, but read the transcript of the Virginia ratifying convention.
We agree on something!
"But, sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed government"
Mixed government. Clearly stated.
Incidentally, this brings up another question that you've been begging, which is why we should simply accept the criticisms leveled by Henry, on your or his say so?
Of course. They were plotting. Like something you'd see on Prison Planet. Sure.
They DID amend the Articles. The reason being that everybody knew the Articles were not working as advertised. There were already plans in the works - openly known - to change the articles, which is what the term "amendment" means. Ever heard of the Annapolis Convention of 1786?
We weren't an infant country. We were a Union of 13 separate and distinct countries, who formed a confederacy of amity and shared purpose. Brothers and sisters, not one being.
Well no, not exactly. The terminology you are using - "separate and distinct countries" - is not in line with what actually existed under the Articles, under which we were a "Perpetual Union" (their words, not mine). Indeed, the federal government under the Articles, also had sole authority to conduct foreign policy, declare war, operate a navy, and maintain a standing army. This alone denies that the states were "separate and distinct countries," as such terminology implies that they were completely sovereign in their affairs, which they clearly were not.
Further, your notion that the Constitution of 1787 somehow created a national system that destroyed the sovereignty of the states is spurious. It did not. The hyperbole of 18th century political partisans aside, the balance of power between the states and the federal government between the Articles and the Constitution was actually changed very little. Under both documents, the states retained whatever powers were not specifically delegated to the federal government. Under both documents, the federal government had powers over the declaration and conduct of war, foreign policy, coining money, setting weights and measures, and arbitrating disputes between states.
The major difference, indeed, was that under the Articles, the federal government had no taxing authority - it had to rely upon voluntary grants of funds from the several states, something that almost killed us during the Revolution. Even then, under the Constitution, that taxation power was limited (originally, until the 16th amendment) to direct capitation taxes, and implicitly to tariffs and the like.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. In fact, that was supposed to be the whole point.
So the whole point to the Articles was to subject the people to 13 separate tyrannical governments, which is what could just as easily happen under an Articles-type system, as it could under a "national" system?
You argue for national domination. Well, you got it!
Hoo boy, you're not going to try that "if you disagree with me, then you're a RINO!!1!!1!" nonsense, are you?
Sure. Hamilton wanted to become a dictator, and all that. Fantasies all.
It's definitely not a straw man to say that the Articles were failing, and already had shown themselves to be a failure. That is simple, unassailable fact. They HAD failed. The inability of the federal government to raise the funds to pay for troops to fight the British nearly cost us the war at several points.
Your argument would be more persuasive were it not for the fact that most of the same men who were involved with crafting the Constitution also were involved in crafting the Articles of Confederation. They, of all people, knew that their own creation wasn't working as it ought to, and the reason for that was due to the several serious and fundamental structural flaws in the way the Articles were set up. The same Founders who you accuse of plotting to set up an Empire were mostly the same men who had created the Articles. Your argument is simply complete, unmitigated feverish bunkum.
That's because I didn't say that. I said it was "created" in secret. Which it was.
Which it wasn't. The convention in Philadelphia, and the processes involved, were known. The Annapolis Convention had already been called to revise the Articles the previous year, but only five states sent delegates, so it was scrapped, and at that time, another convention was called for Philadelphia the following year. Nothing in secret. It was all known.
Further, your argument that they were called to merely "amend" the articles, with its implied meaning that they were specifically tasked with leaving the Articles nearly as they were, is spurious. "Amendment" involves any change. What happened at Philadelphia was an "amendment." When a convention is called, any and all changes that are felt to be needed by the participants are open and fair game. These men knew their own creation, the Articles, had failed because of flaws within the Articular system itself. They revised them - and really, if we're honest, in most areas a comparison between the Articles and the Constitution shows that they didn't really alter the system all that much.
As for your denials regarding Henry's attack on checks and balances, I can't help you if you look at 2+2 and get 5.
Sorry, but PH was NOT using the term in the same manner as the article posted on this thread uses it - which is what you were trying to argue against. Sorry, but you don't get to move the goalposts now that you've failed to make your original point.
That's well and fine as Mr. Henry's opinion, partisan and hyperbolic as it might have been. Why you think that this is supposed to be a convincing objective argument is not clear, however.
Again, quoting this does nothing to address the original point in the article that you're quibbling with - it merely expresses Patrick Henry's opinion about a document that he personally didn't like. That's not evidence, that's hearsay.
The article makes the point that the purpose of the checks and balance system in the Constitution was to serve as a brake on the accumulation of power into any one person or group's hands. That was the intention of the Founders who crafted the constitutional system, as we have it in their own words, and so far, you have completely failed to demonstrate that this is not the case.
The system worked quite well, actually, until the Constitution began to be more or less ignored, after 1865, and certainly after 1929. The failure of the system to work was not structurally inherent with the Constitution itself, but occurred because of the conscious decision of those in power to ignore and circumvent the Constitution.
It's amazing, however, when one actually looks at the two documents side by side, how similar they actually are with respect to the division of powers between the states and the federal government, and the relative paucity of federal powers vis-a-vis the states. Basically, the Constitution granted taxing authority to the federal government so as to actually be able to do the things it was tasked with doing - national defence, operating a navy, conducting foreign policy (which involves diplomatic personnel, embassies, etc.) The federal system also allowed the federal government to assume state war debt obligations.
The Constitution also gave the federal government power over land grants in territories claimed, but not controlled, by the states. This is a legitimate function of the role of arbitrating between the states that even the Articles assigned to the federal government. However, the Articles had failed to give the FedGov power to actually operate in this sphere.
lol. They didn't have sarcasm tags back then.
Incidentally, this brings up another question that you've been begging, which is why we should simply accept the criticisms leveled by Henry, on your or his say so?
You evidently don't know what it means to "beg a question." That aside, who said anyone should "simply accept" anything, the way you simply accept the idea that the Articles of Confederation were beyond repair? I surely didn't.
The articles hadn’t failed. They were aborted by the big gubmint federalists.
No, the idea was that 13 small republican governments rendered liberty more secure than one supreme consolidated government. Of course, we can now see this view was correct.
Under a sovereign state system, ie, the way our country was supposed to be set up and remain,
you could “vote with your feet” if your state became tyrannical.
The left, however, doesn’t want you to be able to escape tyranny, so they centralized as much power/tyranny as possible.
It's not an accusation. It's a fact. Washington used the term "empire" on more than one occasion.
Of course. This is where Hamilton, with his boy Madison, laid the groundwork for Philly. It was indeed a plot, brilliantly executed, to ditch the confederation and create a consolidated government.
ping
The problem is the Constitution gave too much power and latitude to the national government. Obviously, by 1865, the idea of state sovereignty was lost. The states as they are today are mere administrative agencies.
“I begin to look forward with a kind of political faith, to scenes of National happiness, which have not heretofore been offered for the fruition of the Most favoured Nations. The Natural, political, and Moral circumstances of our Nascent empire justify the anticipation.”
George Washington
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.