Posted on 03/04/2010 7:56:50 AM PST by Publius
Thirteen or more separate states could not be as strong as one United States of America. They would be easily turned against each other by foreign diplomatic intrigue. Actually they would probably turn against each other before that just because they have different and competing economic and social interests. Eventually the foreigners (presumably the British, but not necessarily) would waltz in and be hailed for liberating the disunited states from the scourge of war by imposing its will. Presumably we would now all happily be singing “God Save the Queen” before our cricket games and soccer matches if it were the British.
I understand that you hate the Constitution. That is regrettable, but that is your problem.
...following the radicalism of the French Revolution Henry's views changed as he began to fear a similar fate could befall America and by the late 1790s Henry was in support of the Federalist policies of Washington and Adams. He especially denounced the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which had been secretly written by Jefferson and Madison, and approved by the legislatures of those two states. He warned that civil war was threatened because Virginia, "had quitted the sphere in which she had been placed by the Constitution, and, in daring to pronounce upon the validity of federal laws, had gone out of her jurisdiction in a manner not warranted by any authority, and in the highest degree alarming to every considerate man; that such opposition, on the part of Virginia, to the acts of the general government, must beget their enforcement by military power; that this would probably produce civil war, civil war foreign alliances, and that foreign alliances must necessarily end in subjugation to the powers called in." ... He strongly supported John Marshall and at the urging of Washington stood for and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates as a Federalist.
Once the Constitution had been ratified, Robert Yates, who was probably Brutus, also said that the debate was over and the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
Wish I had time to respond other than to say the above quote is funny.
I'm really starting to hate this guy.. John Kerry pops into my mind when I read this. Puffed up with unearned money and elitism.
Despite this.. He makes some good points but he is profoundly naive.
The ubermenshen that are so wise to want to rule over us couldn't possibly have ulterior motives, like power, greed, political ideology that would put the nation at risk.
We defeated the British without consolidated government.
We did it without the Articles of Confederation as well, which were ratified just a few months before victory at Yorktown. We won at Yorktown despite the Articles and due to the assistance of the French Army, Navy and the efforts of a Virginia military dictator. His name was Thomas Nelson and his predations were made necessary by inadequate government. Absent his requisitions against the people of Virginian the combined armies may not have prevailed against the British.
This guy makes a number of great points.
That’s not Henry admitting he was wrong in opposing the Constitution. He didn’t recant on any of that. He simply accepted the outcome of the ratification and served honorably under the new system.
Brutal irony in all of that. Henry tried to warn them, but no, they had to have their new fangled system. Then almost immediately they scrambled around trying to deal with the damage they'd wrought,and there was Henry, properly interpreting the system THEY created.
Oh, now you have the time! Let's hear it.
But you seem to want disunion, to think it's a good thing.
chuckle. You're just like John Jay, conflating opposition to the Consitution with disunion.
Too bad the Anti-federalists didn't man up and actually produce their Anti-constitution. I'm sure it would have been the eighth wonder of the world.
It's 2010. The Anti-federalists have produced squat for 223 consecutive years. Will they finally produce this year? You can hold your breath - I won't.
lol. Thanks for showing your true colors.
but never came up with their alternative, their “Anti-constitution” to give it a name for purposes of argument. Since they never came up with their Anti-constitution that left only two choices: The Constitution or nothing, i.e. disunion.
That's nowhere near the truth. For one, we already had a government. Rejection of the Constitution would not have returned them to a state of nature. It would have been just another day under the Articles of Confederation.
The "alternative" to the Constitution is what sent the delegates to Philly in the first place. They were asked to make specific changes to the Articles, but certain delegates, particularly Hamilton and Madison, already had their plan to adopt a new, centralized, national government, and so they seized the opportunity, showing up with a draft already written.
The Anti-federalists have produced squat for 223 consecutive years.
What the antifederalists produced was an accurate critique of the national system created by the Constitution, and some good predictions of the abuses that would follow.
Anyway, I find your hostility and name-calling amusing. Thanks for the entertainment.
Uh, being a student freshly exposed to the roots of our form of government, I must admit that, so far, the Bill of Rights seems to be the child of the Anti-Federalists.
Today, conversation about our form of government is likely, more often than not, to discuss which amendment is being challenged.
Line 27 appears to be an outlier compared to his prior arguments. One can accept that there was no 'official' declaration of war against Indians in part or in whole but the effects of alliances and treaties would have a negative impact on a large scale and soon be realized. Retributions against the Loyalists did not distinguish between Europeans and Indians.
He describes a great gathering of able men to the benefit of all. It can also be interpreted as having the ability to control remote areas and future states from a central authority.
The power of the government ultimately rests with the individual. Given to states or the union, the source remains the same. Jay makes a valid point that a larger group of individuals uniting together has an exponentially stronger bargaining position. He is too willing to overlook the fact (as sig226 says in post 3) "Often the king’s men do not care about the best interests of the king."
24 So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people.
It is understandable that 'one world government' was not an issue at the time. The world influence of a country was generally defined by the range of it's weapons, ships being one of the farthest ranging. Today is different, of course, and we have ICBMs. The consolidation of all governments of our planet would be the logical outcome of his ideology.
Review your own comments directed at John Jay and Gov. Randolph. Your first resort is the ad-hominem. Keep laughing. It suits those who substitute emotion for thought.
Seceding? From a perpetual Union? Surely you jest!!
Fact is that they ALL did seced from the "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation and formed a NEW government under the Constitution. How did they legally do that?
If their criticisms had been accurate they would have continued to point them out after the Constitution was ratified. They weren't and they didn't. Once it was in operation they realized that their criticisms were wrong. They shut up.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. After it was ratified, and the first congress was in session, they added 10 amendments to the Constitution to attempt to improve some of its obvious deficiencies. That's hardly shutting up.
As for who turned out to be wrong, history has shown who was right and who was wrong. Do we have a judiciary that is virtually unchecked and expands federal power? Do we have a congress that deems almost anything within the scope of its "necessary and proper" powers? Do we have states that have been neutered to the point of being mere agents or depaertments of the national government? These were the predictions of the antifederalists.
Or, on the other hand, do we have robust states and a federal government of "few and defined" powers." That was the federalist argument.
Obviously, the question answers itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.