You are truly confused. The Continental Congress & the Committees of Correspondence between the leaders of distinct & functioning communities preceded the States gaining recognized independence in the Treaty Of Paris; but the colonies that later achieved their sovereign independence had functioned as established societies, in some cases for five or more generations.
No one later joined the Union to have their diverse cultures overridden by bureaucrats or politicians, seeking to force social change on other people. If you read the Declaration of Independence--actually read it in context--you will see that much of it relates to opposition to an over-reaching central authority. The Founders did not rebel against an overreaching Government in London, to create one in Washington or Philadelphia.
For the deliberate revival of an anti-Southern ideological sectionalism by the American Left, see Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today.
Your peppering you comments with abusive terms reduces them to rants. You will not likely persuade anyone who does not already hate traditional values; but, in so ranting, you do help others to understand who are the real aggressors in all of this.
The real issues concern the rights of distinct peoples & communities to define their own cultural values. We do, indeed, have many cultural values in common in America--at least among those rooted in American culture. We also have a great many local nuances of culture. The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.
William Flax
Well said!
Well said indeed and ABSOLUTELY true!
Ohioan:The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.
Virginia ratification convention:
Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.
For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states.
Well said, indeed, Sir.
Colonies are not “states”. The Continental Congress receded the formation of any of the “states”. The “functional societies on the continent, the Indian tribes such as the Iroquoise, were not “states” either. I am not the one confused here.
There were no “diverse cultures” endanger of being overridden by the federal government then or now (except for the Indian cultures). Slight variations in the overwhelmingly American culture does not represent “diversity”. The Slaver “culture” was little higher than the “culture” of the criminal gangs of NYC, part of the democrat alliance.
The federal government in 1860 was TINY with a TINY army dispersed along the frontier. You will not get away with the outrageous LIE of federal “tyranny” to support the Slaver Revolt. It is a LIE through and through. It could not have tyrannized ANYONE in 1860. Stop LYING.
No one should mistake my view since I paint them in the most clear terms. There was NO justification for the Slaver Revolt and there is not a shred of justification for defending it. ZERO.
John Marshall would have been the first to volunteer to defend the UNION. That union his rulings had done so much to create and strengthen against its internal enemies. Marshall agreed almost entirely with his great friend Alexander Hamilton who put the Union’s safety above almost everything earthly.
The Slaver Revolt came about ONLY because the Slavers’ wanted it to protect slavery. NOT because of Lincoln, not because of capitalist machinations, not because of abolitionists. But ONLY by Slavers for Slavers.