Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: stand watie; fortheDeclaration
"a coalition of SOVEREIGN STATES was PRECISELY what the 13 states had in mind. NONE of the states would have freely joined a government in the 18/19th century (after fighting GB for their FREEDOM), which they could not leave just as freely."

NO American state ever functioned in a fully sovereign manner. Prior to 1776, still as colonies, they had already formed an association. From July 1776 to the present, certain sovereign powers (such as making war or peace, maintaining an army or a navy, and conducting diplomacy, etc.) have been exercised by the general/national government. Those sovereign powers were denied to the states - ergo - the states were not fully sovereign.

Furthermore, more than a decade had passed since the United States had become a sovereign nation and operated under the form of government outlined in the Articles of Confederation (proposed 1776, ratified 1781). That form of government had proved to be unworkable, in part because individual states were abusing their powers. The point of Philadelphia Convention was to strengthen the general government - at the expense of the states - and to create a "more perfect Union." The people of all of the states, in convention, unconditionally ratified the new Constitution (even if Rhode Island was brought in by the narrowest of margins, late, and kicking and screaming).

What's more, the outgoing government peaceably provided for the incoming new government, to provide a seamless transition between the two. There was no secession, no revolution, here.

3,311 posted on 03/04/2005 9:02:21 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3300 | View Replies ]


To: capitan_refugio
actually the states HAD operated as a coalition of separate states, up to the time the Constitution was ratified AND nobody THEN believed that they were bound to remain in a union, which they believed had ceased to protect their state's citizens from harm.

the writer's of the Constitution wanted "a more perfect union" but NOT a powerful central government, which would cede many powers of the states to that government, beyond those NECESSARY things like the postal service/coinage/limited taxation/general defense.

your post is an excellent example of the UNIONIST/REVISIONIST view of history BUT it does NOT make you/it any less INACCURATE.

sorry, but anything more than a scan of the founding father's writings on this subject indicates the REVISIONIST/unionist heresy is exactly that: heresy.

free dixie,sw

3,315 posted on 03/04/2005 9:15:29 AM PST by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3311 | View Replies ]

To: capitan_refugio
exactly right.

The problem with the Articles was that the states were acting too independently and were putting up trade barriors between one another and printing their own money etc.

What the constitution did was remove those elements of sovereignty, to create a more perfect union, with free trade among the states and the federal government responsible for the coining of money.

3,346 posted on 03/04/2005 2:14:27 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3311 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson