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.
ahhh, short and sweet.
one thing,....define federalism and teh fight is on.
Difficult to do... Madison, Jay and Hamilton were not Brief when Explaining it...
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
peace...
Nor were they always in agreement with each other.
I'm a monarchist.
I think we should restore the monarchy back to its rightful place after 233 years.
Even though you say you are for a democracy, deep down you yearn to be ruled by the iron fist of a monarch.
God Save the Queen.
joking or not, you should be hanged for that...
Benedict Arnold was a patriot.
Like fuckin' hell.Classical liberalism a la the founders of this country espouses a small federal government whose only real duties are to defend us from enemies within and without and adjudicate disputes - mostly commercial between the various fifty states. That Ideal has been essentially dead since FDR.
That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.
It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.
joking or not, you should be hanged for that...
Benedict Arnold was a patriot.
I thought there was a "No Union Jack" policy on this board?
the articles failed. they would've kept us in a state of banana republichood you idiot
No, they never failed. Madison and Hamilton simply decided to craft an entirely different form of government rather than revise the Articles of Confederation which is what they were supposed to do.
Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?
Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.
sigh
What is this about this battle for the tiltle of Captain Obvious. I thought you were trying to make a point.okay they never failed. that is why everyone was so friggin happy with them.
are you always this doltish? It is starting to make me think there is less to you than everyone says there is.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
Most people were happy with them, generally. There were a few concerns and that's why a convention was called to revise them. However, as I said before, Hamilton and Madison saw that as their chance to create a much more powerful federal government.
sigh
No, they never failed. Madison and Hamilton simply decided to craft an entirely different form of government rather than revise the Articles of Confederation which is what they were supposed to do.
Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?
Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.
sigh
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
No, they never failed. Madison and Hamilton simply decided to craft an entirely different form of government rather than revise the Articles of Confederation which is what they were supposed to do.
Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?
Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.
sigh
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
Articles of Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAccording to their own terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until November 1788,[18][19][20][21] overseeing the adoption of the new Constitution by the states, and setting elections. By that date, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution.
Historians have given many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994) point to the financial weakness as well as the norms, rules and institutional structures of the Congress, and the propensity to divide along sectional lines.
Rakove (1988) identifies several factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation. The lack of compulsory direct taxation power was objectionable to those wanting a strong centralized state or expecting to benefit from such power. It could not collect customs after the war because tariffs were vetoed by Rhode Island. Rakove concludes that their failure to implement national measures "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace."[22] The second group of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. Finally, the Confederation's lack of coercive power reduced the likelihood for profit to be made by political means, thus potential rulers were uninspired to seek power.
When the war ended in 1783, certain special interests had incentives to create a new "merchant state," much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition among states made this impossible without a central government.[23]
Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."[24]
Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?
Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.
sigh
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
The state conventions represented the people of each individual state. That is the way it worked. You are starting to sound like the idiots who rant and rave agaisnt the Federal Reserve Bank and the ones who screech that Obama is not native born.
In a democracy like ours it is often the raelity that one side ofar outnumbers the other(s).
The Federalist Essays were co-written by a New Yorker who couldn't even sway his own state to go with his ideas. The failure of the Articles is that they even needed/demanded a new constitutional convention.
Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?
Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.
sigh
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
Umm, the Articles of Confederation did fail. There was tremendous debt that could not be paid, people getting screwed. There was "runaway inflation and collapsing public credit" The Ascent of George Washington, The Hidden Political Genius of An American Icon. John Ferling, Pager 262.
Trade was a quagmire, soldiers pensions were bought by speculators for a fraction of their worth, etc.
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
Umm, the Articles of Confederation did fail. There was tremendous debt that could not be paid, people getting screwed. There was "runaway inflation and collapsing public credit" The Ascent of George Washington, The Hidden Political Genius of An American Icon. John Ferling, Pager 262.
Trade was a quagmire, soldiers pensions were bought by speculators for a fraction of their worth, etc.
None of that is necessarily the fault of the Articles as we have a lot of that now.
Not quite, the citizens did not ratify the Constitution. Special conventions in each state ratified the Constitution. Federalists outnumbered Anti-Federalists and some Anti-Federalists were brought on board because of a promise of a Bill of Rights and the arguments presented by the Federalist Papers. My point is that the government created by the Articles of Confederation never failed, it's just that Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government.
The state conventions represented the people of each individual state. That is the way it worked. You are starting to sound like the idiots who rant and rave agaisnt the Federal Reserve Bank and the ones who screech that Obama is not native born.
In a democracy like ours it is often the raelity that one side ofar outnumbers the other(s).
The Federalist Essays were co-written by a New Yorker who couldn't even sway his own state to go with his ideas. The failure of the Articles is that they even needed/demanded a new constitutional convention.
Yes, but let's be clear that it was not the people directly as you said in your previous post. I suppose I'm one of the "idiots" that rant and rave against the Federal Reserve considering it's unconstitutional and creates the business cycle which is directly responsible for our current economic downturn. I don't concern myself with conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birthplace, I'm far more concerned with the policies he's trying to enact.
We do not have a democracy.
Couldn't sway his own state? New York ratified the Constitution. The people believed that the Articles needed some revisions, they did not believe they needed an entirely new system of governance or they would have given that commission to the convention.
...to neglect to portray the vote without the full context of the arguments is to miss much of things. Of course NY finally went along. \But HAmilton's supposedly brilliant arguments fell on deaf ears for quite a while...until the very end. And it is safe to asssuem that his arguments...his original intent ---was not what won over the other side.The most difficult battle was waged in New York. Although New York eventually became the eleventh state to ratify the new Constitution, it was heavily Anti-Federalist, and victory was by no means assured at the outset.
The state conventions represented the people of each individual state. That is the way it worked. You are starting to sound like the idiots who rant and rave agaisnt the Federal Reserve Bank and the ones who screech that Obama is not native born.
In a democracy like ours it is often the raelity that one side ofar outnumbers the other(s).
The Federalist Essays were co-written by a New Yorker who couldn't even sway his own state to go with his ideas. The failure of the Articles is that they even needed/demanded a new constitutional convention.
Yes, but let's be clear that it was not the people directly as you said in your previous post. I suppose I'm one of the "idiots" that rant and rave against the Federal Reserve considering it's unconstitutional and creates the business cycle which is directly responsible for our current economic downturn. I don't concern myself with conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birthplace, I'm far more concerned with the policies he's trying to enact.
We do not have a democracy.
Couldn't sway his own state? New York ratified the Constitution. The people believed that the Articles needed some revisions, they did not believe they needed an entirely new system of governance or they would have given that commission to the convention.
the people? populist bs. we have a representative democracy.
and in the NY state convention......to neglect to portray the vote without the full context of the arguments is to miss much of things. Of course NY finally went along. \But HAmilton's supposedly brilliant arguments fell on deaf ears for quite a while...until the very end. And it is safe to asssuem that his arguments...his original intent ---was not what won over the other side.The most difficult battle was waged in New York. Although New York eventually became the eleventh state to ratify the new Constitution, it was heavily Anti-Federalist, and victory was by no means assured at the outset.
Umm, the Articles of Confederation did fail. There was tremendous debt that could not be paid, people getting screwed. There was "runaway inflation and collapsing public credit" The Ascent of George Washington, The Hidden Political Genius of An American Icon. John Ferling, Pager 262.
Trade was a quagmire, soldiers pensions were bought by speculators for a fraction of their worth, etc.
None of that is necessarily the fault of the Articles as we have a lot of that now.
The Articles because they were so loose, didn't give much power to a "federal government" to solve these issues though. i.e., emsculation.
Back then, it was because there was no central responsibility, now there is too much control.
None of that is necessarily the fault of the Articles as we have a lot of that now.
The Articles because they were so loose, didn't give much power to a "federal government" to solve these issues though. i.e., emsculation.
Back then, it was because there was no central responsibility, now there is too much control.
That's why people believed that certain revisions to the Articles would be good, however they still favored the system of governance established by the Articles. If they didn't then they would have called the conventions to create a new Constitution rather than to simply revise the Articles. Let's not forget that Rhode Island and North Carolina were the last two states to ratify the Constitution and until such time remained under the supposedly failed Articles of Confederation.
The state conventions represented the people of each individual state. That is the way it worked. You are starting to sound like the idiots who rant and rave agaisnt the Federal Reserve Bank and the ones who screech that Obama is not native born.
In a democracy like ours it is often the raelity that one side ofar outnumbers the other(s).
The Federalist Essays were co-written by a New Yorker who couldn't even sway his own state to go with his ideas. The failure of the Articles is that they even needed/demanded a new constitutional convention.
Yes, but let's be clear that it was not the people directly as you said in your previous post. I suppose I'm one of the "idiots" that rant and rave against the Federal Reserve considering it's unconstitutional and creates the business cycle which is directly responsible for our current economic downturn. I don't concern myself with conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birthplace, I'm far more concerned with the policies he's trying to enact.
We do not have a democracy.
Couldn't sway his own state? New York ratified the Constitution. The people believed that the Articles needed some revisions, they did not believe they needed an entirely new system of governance or they would have given that commission to the convention.
the people? populist bs. we have a representative democracy.
and in the NY state convention......to neglect to portray the vote without the full context of the arguments is to miss much of things. Of course NY finally went along. \But HAmilton's supposedly brilliant arguments fell on deaf ears for quite a while...until the very end. And it is safe to asssuem that his arguments...his original intent ---was not what won over the other side.The most difficult battle was waged in New York. Although New York eventually became the eleventh state to ratify the new Constitution, it was heavily Anti-Federalist, and victory was by no means assured at the outset.
The Articles because they were so loose, didn't give much power to a "federal government" to solve these issues though. i.e., emsculation.
Back then, it was because there was no central responsibility, now there is too much control.
That's why people believed that certain revisions to the Articles would be good, however they still favored the system of governance established by the Articles. If they didn't then they would have called the conventions to create a new Constitution rather than to simply revise the Articles. Let's not forget that Rhode Island and North Carolina were the last two states to ratify the Constitution and until such time remained under the supposedly failed Articles of Confederation.
I'm not forgetting that. However, the power players of the day, Washington, et al., pushed for a Constitution. And once Washington, the national teflonic hero was behind it, the Articles didn't stand a chance.
