The Constitution was not fully supported by the people

[Screaming Eagle]

It has always been a minority of Americans who wanted freedom.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It means we had two examples of Confederation and neither worked well.

Meaning the Articles and the Constitution?

Meaning the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America.

Well under the Constitution the U.S. is still a confederation of states, it's just that the federal government is given more powers than it was under the Articles of Confederation. As for the Articles not working well, I'd say that's a matter of opinion. There were certainly problems under them, such as the states being protectionist against one another, but I wouldn't say the Articles were a failure. I'd simply say that Hamilton and Madison were statists who wanted a stronger federal government, and given Hamilton's later record I'd say that's a fair assessment.

As for the Confederate States, how didn't they work well? The Confederate Constitution was based on the U.S. Constitution, and in some areas was superior. The only reason the Confederacy didn't work well was because they lost the Civil War and were forced back into the Union, but that doesn't really speak against their form of government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CSA lost the war in part because the national government could not compel the state governments to do certain things, such as provide the number of men needed for a woefully smaller CSA army.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well under the Constitution the U.S. is still a confederation of states,

Actually, it's a federation.

 

[bodecea]

Well under the Constitution the U.S. is still a confederation of states,

Actually, it's a federation.

Yes, a Federal system of government...not a confederation.

 

[Claudette]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans .

Out of what ass hat did you pull that "fact"

Yup , I was taught that the Constitution had a hard time passing and that the Authors had to write the Federalist papers to help pass it in New York. That right up to the end no one was sure it would pass and that the deal maker was an inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

The original Authors felt that since the document only granted VERY limited powers there was no reason to include a list of things not covered. It being easier to list the few that were allowed vise the lot that would not be covered.

As we can see with the idiots and the supposed General Welfare clause they were sadly mistaken on what future Generations would claim the document did grant.

I'm with you. Everything I've read and heard says they had a hell of a time getting all 13 states to ratify the Consitution. Finally got it done but it sure wasn't easy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well under the Constitution the U.S. is still a confederation of states,

Actually, it's a federation.

I believe I've had this discussion before.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." - John Adams

Apparently John Adams believed we were a confederation, and apparently the Confederate States believed they were a confederation. What with our governments being setup exactly the same, I'd have to say John Adams is correct in calling us a confederation.

 

[bodecea]

Well under the Constitution the U.S. is still a confederation of states,

Actually, it's a federation.

I believe I've had this discussion before.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." - John Adams

Apparently John Adams believed we were a confederation, and apparently the Confederate States believed they were a confederation. What with our governments being setup exactly the same, I'd have to say John Adams is correct in calling us a confederation.

OK, here is where you fail...the U.S. government and the Confederate States governments were NOT set up exactly the same.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Confederations and Federations

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, it's a federation.

I believe I've had this discussion before.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." - John Adams

Apparently John Adams believed we were a confederation, and apparently the Confederate States believed they were a confederation. What with our governments being setup exactly the same, I'd have to say John Adams is correct in calling us a confederation.

OK, here is where you fail...the U.S. government and the Confederate States governments were NOT set up exactly the same.

The states didn't create a federal government with three branches: a legislature, executive, and judicial?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Confederations and Federations

So your point is that we now resemble this definition of federation as opposed to the definition of a confederation. Hard to argue with that. However, we were meant to be a confederation, and were until the Civil War.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

These United States (plural) were dismantled by Lincoln and reconstituted as the United States (singluar). The level of autonomy of the member States was severely restricted when they became states of this new system of governance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

These United States (plural) were dismantled by Lincoln and reconstituted as the United States (singluar). The level of autonomy of the member States was severely restricted when they became states of this new system of governance.

That we can agree on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many would agree that historically some of the Founders believed the states were part of a confederation or an union of states, not a federation. I think Madison (in 1787), Hamilton, Washington, Adams, and many others would disagree with you.

 

[Navy1960]

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

I meant to say they had two TRIES at Confederation....both abject failures.

Texas v. White

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Justice Chase


and yet, one of those same failed confederations was used as the very reasoning for the decision that has fostered the belief in "perpetual union"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Navy1960, forgive me. Explain the meaning to you more clearly for me in your final statement under "Samuel Chase".

 

[Navy1960]

Navy1960, forgive me. Explain the meaning to you more clearly for me in your final statement under "Samuel Chase".

Pretty simple, really, Jake, Texas v. White is the only thing outside a revolt that keeps a state from leaving the Union at the moment, and for the most part that decision was based on the concept of "prepetual union" and on large part based on the concepts in the Articles of Confederation. So what I found as interesting is that while of course the two times they were tired as mentioned by the poster they failed, one resulting in a massive failure, the one thing that prevents it from happening it again was based on one of those failures, I just thought that was ironic.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Texas v. White

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

And, as the Crown was left it history when found incapable of servinf the people and the Articles on Confederation put aside to form a more perfect union, the Constitution and the government founded upon it was put left to those content with it to form a union more representative of the will of the People of the Confederacy...

It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

The concept of any indissoluble union in an abomination and a fantasy of the4 tyrant spitting upon the very People who must consent to the governance of any valid and just government. To claim that any have no right to self determination is to claim in all but the same words the 'divine right' once claimed by kinds to oppress and rule over the masses, and makes a mockery of the Founding Fathers and the men to whom they turned for inspiration when exercising their right to throw off the chains of a governance that did not serve them.

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States . Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This would include secession, thereby rendering the above claims on the part of the Court invalid,

And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.

If this were true, then Texas would not have been allowed to state in its petition the reservation of the right to dissolve the its union with the other member States.


TvW was a political decision that was illegal and illogical.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'd agree it was a stretch necessary for practical purposes.

Perhaps our founders left out the forbidding of succession just to leave that moment of pause in the Federal mind about stepping on any one region of states too heavily.

Then again I think state lines need redrawn and renamed every 10 years to prevent folks from thinking they're Georgians or Alaskans, or Mainies, or Missourians or whatever ridiculousness before Americans.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Only the special breed of idiot that is the nationalist says he is an American first, or a Briton, a German. The man of principles identifies himself not by the flag of a nation or a region drawn upon a map, but by by those ideals and principles he upholds.

Perhaps, Tornado, the lines of nations need to be oft redrawn? Nah1 i reject your premise out of hand. For in truth, when principles reign, the borders of nations and of States arise and redraw themselves with the differing ideals, principles, and forms, of governance which marks the varying societies.