Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Today we follow The United States' second Constitution. The first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was the law of the land from March, 1871 to March, 1789. What was the intent of the founding fathers in replacing our first constitution with the present one?
Today we follow The United States' second Constitution. The first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was the law of the land from March, 1871 to March, 1789. What was the intent of the founding fathers in replacing our first constitution with the present one?
The articles of confederation totally sucked, that's why the FF's abandoned it.
It was tried briefly when the CSA was created but Jeff Davis very quickly understood that this theoretical system couldn't work, too.
When a central government is dependent on the states for its income, the central government doesn't have enough power to actually control those things that are best controlled by a central government.
For example, under the articles of confederation there was no SINGLE currency.
Now that was nightmare for people since it wasn't uncommon for a businessman to have to deal with ten or twenty different state and or local bank currencies.
That demanded that people keep up to date on the solvency of the bank or state currency, and know the value of it relative to the local currency.
Another problem was with international relations.
The central government could propose, but the states could (and did) ignore the laws of the land since they could legally.
If you want a viable nation you need a viable central authority.
You're going to have to learn to just Deal with it, states righters, because that's just the way it is.
Today we follow The United States' second Constitution. The first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was the law of the land from March, 1871 to March, 1789. What was the intent of the founding fathers in replacing our first constitution with the present one?
The articles of confederation totally sucked, that's why the FF's abandoned it.
It was tried briefly when the CSA was created but Jeff Davis very quickly understood that this theoretical system couldn't work, too.
When a central government is dependent on the states for its income, the central government doesn't have enough power to actually control those things that are best controlled by a central government.
For example, under the articles of confederation there was no SINGLE currency.
Now that was nightmare for people since it wasn't uncommon for a businessman to have to deal with ten or twenty different state and or local bank currencies.
That demanded that people keep up to date on the solvency of the bank or state currency, and know the value of it relative to the local currency.
Another problem was with international relations.
The central government could propose, but the states could (and did) ignore the laws of the land since they could legally.
If you want a viable nation you need a viable central authority.
You're going to have to learn to just Deal with it, states righters, because that's just the way it is.
Excellent post...
I would love to see one just as astute on when the scale over balanced in favor of federal power.
The US moved from being a secondary economic and military power to the European nations to the strongest economic and military force on the globe
The US moved from being a secondary economic and military power to the European nations to the strongest economic and military force on the globe
But that took 85 years to manifest. Hardly a causal relationship.
The US moved from being a secondary economic and military power to the European nations to the strongest economic and military force on the globe
But that took 85 years to manifest. Hardly a causal relationship.
How would having a state centered form of government accelerated that process?
