1. Macron and Le Pen in French election, main event later, Stocks go nuts to the up on the news
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Monday Morning! Gold is down 15 to 1273, while Silver is down 5 to 17,80 on the news. Crude is up 44 to 5006 and the USD is down 100 to 98.88
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 4/22/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1289.10-- UP 0.60 Silver $17.85-- down 66 Oil $49.62-- down 3.80 USD $99.88 -- down 58

Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War

Discussion in 'Library and Editorials' started by BarnacleBob, Dec 1, 2013.



  1. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Revolutionary war DEBT cost to the Confederacy under the Articles of Confederation remaining post the war: $37 millions in gold, Revolutionary DEBT cost to the 13 Confederated States remaining post the war: $114 millions in gold, total amount of circulating gold in the Confederate States post the war: $12 millions!

    https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histo...-economic-revolution/toward-economic-freedom/

    Houston we have a problem... only $ 12 millions in gold in circulation post the war, but $151 millions in gold denominated debt, AND the CONFEDERACY did not possess the authority to tax the Colonists....

    The remedy to this problem was the construction & ratification of the Constitution 1787 which authorized direct and indirect taxation on the colonists to repay the debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation....see Article VI

    "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." --Article VI, U.S. Const. 1787

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

    Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War

    The United States spent $400 million in wages for its troops.

    American Financing

    As the war progressed, the Americans’ deteriorating financial stability quickly became Britain’s greatest asset. Because it did not possess the power to tax the colonists, the Continental Congress printed money at a rapid rate to fund the army’s expenses and pay off its loans from foreign nations.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_costs_of_the_American_Revolutionary_War
     
  2. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. [1] Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution. [2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
     
  3. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The FIRST so called legitimate .gov of the united States of America was formed by the Articles of Confederation....

    The Articles of 1777 were replaced by the New .gov of The United States of America by the ratification of U.S. Constitution 1787..... The unique feature of the Constitution 1787

    is the establishment of the .gov of the united States into a perpetual trust titled The United States.... the trust may be altered & amended pursuant the covenants of the trust document, but it cannot become inoperational w/o its destruction in toto.

    Considering that in 1861, the Confederate States of the PERPETUAL Trust Union walked out of Congress, meaning that a quorum could no longer arise, this effectively suspended the remaining Congressional authority to lawfully act as a legislative body per the Constitution. This gave rise to Lincolns de facto emergency .gov throughout the War between the States.

    Shortly after the war, attempts were forcibly made to fully reconstruct the Constitution 1787, however the issues were to great.... These issues gave rise to the so called FOURTEENTH (14th) AMENDMENT .gov.... which is effectively a .gov operating within a .gov as a legal international corporation. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was born sometime around 1933 within the framework laid down by the 14th....

    This is again evidenced, as the previous evidence resided at ARTICLE VI of Const. 1787, concerning debt.... AMENDMENT 14, section 4:

    SECTION 4.

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2013
  4. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The question has arisen, "Were the Founding Fathers" altruistic or were they acting out of necessity and/or self interest with the writ, adoption & ratification of Constitution 1787? The .gov archive also records that 55 of the delegates to the Constitution Convention, 35 were lawyers.... Personally I smell a rat, as lawyers are the first line of defense employed to prevent confiscation and/or the preservation of wealth & property for vested commercial interests.... secondly, men of wealth will almost always seek to preseve their wealth to pass it on to their posterity in the form of inheritance. Why wouldnt these men create a national TRUST into perpetuity constituted by a written Constitution that constitutes a strong federalized gov to defend THEIR wealth from all enemies, both domestic & foreign.... Were they altruistic or were they creating a legal document to protect & preserve their wealth in the present and well into the future for their posterity. Secondly, closely observe the language used in the PREAMBLE:

    Definition: Posterity
    1 : the offspring of one to the furthest generation 2 : all future generations

    PREAMBLE

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Just exactly who do these men name in the Preamble as being the beneficiaries of this trust into perpetuity legally titled CONSTITUTION? In witness thereof the Preamble which specifically states: " to ourselves and our posterity."

    Remember, 35 of the 55 were LAWYERS therefore the words used are jurally selected to emphasize a specific intent, interpretation & meaning.

    Are YOU a party to the contract titled Constitution within the scope and meaning of OURSELVES??? Is your ancestral lineage, "per stirpes" within the meaning, scope & context of being accepted as the direct posterity of "OURSELVES." The answer is NO!

    Next lets look at the specific language of Article VII -Ratification

    "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

    The group calling themselves, OURSELVES a.k.a. "WE THE PEOPLE" scammed the Confederacy States by overthrowing the Articles of Confederation and consolidating their political & economic power behind a curtain titled "WE THE PEOPLE." This is akin to the same trickery of linguistics employed in the name FEDERAL RESERVE, which isnt federal & there is no reserve! So THE constitution was dressed in pretty new clothes and the states bought them.... the states gave up their indepence & a
    uthority to shysters and wizards behind the curtain calling themselves OURSELVES, and WE THE PEOPLE!

    Is this the definition of ALTRUISM??? And theres more, much, much more to the story!
    ,

    Presented below is the official recorded history by WE THE PEOPLE which can be fully perused at this link:


    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

    The Founding Fathers: A Brief Overview

    The 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention were a distinguished body of men who represented a cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were dominant in their communities and states, and many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental forces, most of them in positions of command.

    Political Experience

    The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience. At the time of the convention, four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Mifflin and Gorham had served as president of the body. The only ones who lacked congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Strong, and Yates. Eight men (Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) had signed the Declaration of Independence. Six (Carroll, Dickinson, Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation. But only two, Sherman and Robert Morris, underwrote all three of the nation's basic documents. Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government. Dickinson, Franklin, Langdon, Livingston, Alexander Martin, Randolph, Read, and Rutledge had been governors, and the majority had held county and local offices.

    Occupations

    The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges. At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers. Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained. A few of the delegates were wealthy. Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin were also extremely well-to-do. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent. Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably. A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe. Others were self-made men w ho had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman.
     
    DodgebyDave likes this.
  5. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Another fun fact: There was ONLY two men that signed ALL three founding documents, 1. Declaration of Independence, 2. Articles of Confederation, and 3. Constitution for the united States, one whose name was/is Robert Morris of Pennsylvania.... and.... Roger Sherman of Conneticut

    What class of men can be more altruistic than the class of men titled as banker/financiers & lawyers....??? War profits & the spoils therefrom enters my thinking!

    ROBERT MORRIS

    Robert Morris was the master financier of the Revolution and the early republic. A contemporary described him as "bold and enterprising of great mercantile knowledge, fertile in expedients and an able financier. Very popular in and out of the Congress . . . grown extremely rich." His firm profited handsomely from the sale of munitions to the Continental Army, but it did so fairly, and Morris acted within the ethical standards of the time. His labors and his willingness to secure loans with his own personal credit saved the Army and the government from bankruptcy on several occasions. *****

    ***** As the war reached its final phase, he strained his personal credit by issuing notes for government expenses over his own signature. Funds he borrowed from France, along with some of his own money, became the capital of the Bank of North America, the first government-incorporated bank in the United States. "I am determined;" he wrote, "that the bank shall be well supported, until it can support itself and then it can support us."

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/morris.htm

    Roger Sherman

    Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American politician and lawyer. During his lifetime, Sherman served in various capacities. One such post was when he served as the first New Haven's mayor. He also served on the Five Committee that was responsible for drafting the Declaration of Independence. In addition, he served as a new republic's senator and representative.*****

    ***** During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Sherman offered a solution to the amendment of the Articles of Confederation. This solution was to become known as the Great Compromise and entailed the people being represented in the house by proportionate representatives in a single branch of the legislature, known as the Lower House or the House of Representatives, which would feature one representative for every 30,000 people. In comparison, the Upper House had 2 senators per state, no matter what the size of the state was.

    http://www.constitutionday.com/sherman-roger-ct.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2013
  6. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Bottom line result is and always has been the designed ultimate outcome from the Constitution: "INVERTED TOTALITARIANSM!"

    “the chief business of the American people is business.”--Calvin Coolidge, U.S. President


    Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
     
  7. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    I'm NOT anti-constitution, on the contra[HR][/HR]ry, I'm anti-propaghanda fairy tales, I'm pro-factual history.....there is thousands of yrs of history to support WHY men leave the Mother country, like any child, they grow-up and no longer want nor require the protections or benefits of living under the Parent(s).....

    Indeed the so-called Founding Fathers were Americas Aristocracy, they saw opportunity and weighed it against risk seeking to benefit themselves & their posterity.

    To wit:

    "Every age that has historical status is governed by aristocracies. Aristocracy with the meaning - the best are ruling. Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized." --Joeseph Goebbels

    And what a selling job they did... for amongst the general population of Colonists, most were complacent with the Crowns Rule, for there was no risk in retaining the status quo
    Crown Rulership.... It was Americas Aristocracy of bankers, financiers, merchants, importers & exporters, etc. a.k.a. the Colonies "money power" that was preyed upon by the Crown, not the common poor colonist who toiled for meager wages! His life would be the same regardless of whoever ruled over him.... to wit:

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?" --Herman Goring

    The Aristocratic Revolutionaries had to find a "JUST" cause to rally the commoners into the fray, and that cause had to be worthy enuff & valuable enuff for them to risk life & limb for it.... but even then, historical documents indicate that the Aristocracy paid $400 million in wages to its soldiers.... which logically means that most of the Revolutionary Soldiers WERE NOT volunteers... OOPS! Thats not consistent with the history thats distributed is it? Oh, the Revolutionary Soldiers were not altruistic volunteers fighting for the Aristocracies cause! SURPRISE!

    "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Joseph Goebbels
     
  8. RichG

    RichG GIM Radio Host Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There will always be leaders and followers. The problem is Goverment is not an environment for leaders.... it eventually decays into the kind of Government we have now.... leaderless. Leaders are silenced in this environment. :smokin:
     
  9. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,119
    Likes Received:
    24,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    just a couple of quick points,
    by highlighting part of that in red, assume you mean that is important, with the 'it can support us' part...........

    from that are you surmising that he had ties to the crown/or????

    when he could of been altruistic, and by saying 'us', he could have meant us as a new country????

    so even that tiny example is fraught with perils............

    then to use quotes from Goebbels the Nazi from the 1930's and 40's to make a point, a full 150 YEARS after the revolution>>>tossing in a little Goering just for giggles, again a nazi from the period.

    I find that almost insulting, to compare our FFathers to men of such elevated stature. Yeah, I know or assume that it is not a direct comparison, but the point still holds, using them as foundation when discussing the subject.

    or Coolidge, a full 100 years after the revolution, ie multi-generations past with no direct ties to what it was really like????
     
  10. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,119
    Likes Received:
    24,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fwiw, no one here I assume is stupid enough to believe that somehow the war must be paid for by magic. That there certainly would be some type of structure along with deals struck consistent with the time period.

    It becomes important to know the structure of the payoffs along with the conditions applied to the transactions
     
  11. FoundingFathers

    FoundingFathers Founder Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    3,877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They should have given those troops land instead of IOUs.
     
  12. Billboard

    Billboard Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You have made me consider the facts by your point above. Questions:

    1. Where did the Aristocracy get the funds to pay such wages?
    2. If they were borrowed, and people are still paying for such debt, ought the people not be entitled to enjoy the Liberty they are paying for?
     
  13. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    See post #6; re "Inverted Totalitarianism." Money/Wealth, and the seeking thereof becomes the leader.... This isnt Grandma & Grampas Politics anymore! Money leads, politics follows! Not politics leads, money follows! Grampas politics was economic power seeking political power, today its political power seeking economic power... A complete role reversal of the traditional economic & political actors.

    Maybe its always been this way??? IMO there is no nice forms of totalitarianism, inverted or otherwise....
     
  14. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The Aristocracy was indebted by the war, the Articles of Confederation possessed no legal means that allowed the Continental Congress to tax commerce, the colonists or the states to pay the debt... Out of NECCESSITY to remedy the defects of the Articles, the Constitution was erected & ratified into existence.... however the Colonists would not support it, they were suspicious.... this forced the Aristocracy to create the "BILL OF RIGHTS" to relieve the suspicions the Colonists possessed... of course the Colonists had every right to be suspicious, under the Articles their states were truly sovereign within themselves, while under the Constitution, the states & their peoples forced to cede some of their sovereign authority to a central governing body of authority which thru Constitution authorized the regulation of commerce between the states, centralized taxation of the states via indirect excise, duties & imposts, etc., a centralized judicial system etc.... Indeed wouldnt you be suspicious if the UNITED NATIONS proposed that America cede these sovereign functions over to their centralized body of authority?

    About the Revolutionary War Bounty Warrants

    The purpose of the bounty land system was to encourage longer military service. In order to qualify for bounty land, a soldier or sailor had to serve at least three (3) years continuously in the State or Continental Line or State Navy.

    http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/opac/bountyabout.htm


    Follow the Money Tracking Revolutionary War Army Pension Payments

    RG 15, Records of the Veterans Administration


    The earliest pension and bounty-land awards for Revolutionary War service were granted by the Continental Congress and then by the Confederation Congress. After the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Congress enacted pension legislation. The War Department held the military service records necessary to determine an alleged veteran's eligibility for a pension or bounty land. The name of the War Department component that handled these matters.

    http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2008/winter/follow-money.html
     
  15. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The use of the German quotations was an example of the knowledge required to build a collective social & political unit called & known as a country.... THEY ARE ALL CONSTRUCTED & CREATED USING THE SAME PRINCIPLES & METHODS.... nothing has changed for thousands of years....

    The name of the game is influence over other mens minds & perceptions which enable power & control.... some men use religion, others use greed, some use freedom or liberty, some use nationalistic pride, others employ race & hate, etc. to gain power. but they all have one thing in common.... They create EXPECTATIONS by producing what the intended targets want to hear, and they REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT & continuously REPEAT the message until the TARGETS are bamboozled into accepting and believing the rally cry which creates unification.....

    Thousands of yrs of history says that these men did not act altruistically, but if thats your perception, then its your reality, because I know better!
     
  16. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,119
    Likes Received:
    24,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    curious choices though,

    using nazi to make your points rather than something else from those thousands of years,

    seems to put a exclamation point on your commentary

    how did the Prussians go about creating a empire,

    the Romans?

    the Egyptians?

    where is the record to support that this is always how countries are created,

    reality is, it doesn't exist except by using grand assumptions,

    for one, countries were not formed, empires and states of control were, with no known boundaries

    the boundaries in those times expanded until they hit sufficient resistance

    there was no such thing as building a country...........

    JMO of course
     
  17. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    That would've been great but keep in mind that the Louisiana purchase had yet to occur. Perhaps there wasn't enough land on hand to do this ?
     
  18. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,119
    Likes Received:
    24,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    come to think of it,

    the creation of a country, 'America', or 'United States of America' could have been a major break in history,

    where we had:
    the British Empire
    Imperial Japan
    Chinese Dynasty
    Russian Empire

    at the time, and everything prior was far different,

    a creation of a country, a nation, with a defined purpose and a defined legitimate boundary.

    Arguably expanded over the years through trades and deal making rather than strength of army,

    I do not forget the plight of the Indian nations though, and that is a quandry to me with the expansion of US boundaries.

    The wars of Texas were to complete a transaction, along with the war of 1812.

    Prior to this, you had empires, and areas of no concern or claim, nomadic peoples, etc, much as our Indians. Native to the area, but not native to the overrunning empire or nation state.

    ---------------

    1700 map of the world

    expandable by clicking on it and so on

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1700_CE_world_map.PNG
     
  19. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    United States being the same as United Countries since 'state' refers to a country by itself united in government and defined by physical boundaries or state lines.

    As for Texas, after the Revolution:

    Coahuila y Tejas (Coahuila and Texas) was one of the constituent states of the newly established United Mexican States under its 1824 Constitution.

    Of course later, Texas became it's own Republic after the War of Independence in 1836 from Mexico.

    At that time it included modern states today known as New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska (split off after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854).
     
  20. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    The beginning of the plight for Native Americans seems to occur after the Louisiana Purchase (1804) from France and the westward expansion where "free land" is offered to those willing to homestead & stake their claim West. I have an ancestor who married into a Cherokee family and would receive free government land only to profit after reselling. Eventually he had to move to what is today Arkansas to escape government prosecution.
     
  21. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The Prince
    by Niccolò Machiavelli
    Written c. 1505, published 1515

    http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

    Also see: The Republic and Laws by Plato, The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, and historians such as Polybius, Livy and Plutarch who documented the rise of the Roman Republic, and the organization and histories of other nations. In medieval Persia, works such as the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and Epic of Kings by Ferdowsi can be referenced. There are also many religious texts that include many "I want it, you got it, and I'm going to try to take it" stories available from antiquity....

    Lets face the 13 colonies were the property of the King & his trading company. An American Aristocracy arose, and when England was busy defending assets from.foreign enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." England suffering from imperial stretch in a weakened military position provided the opportunity for the American Aristocracy to revolt from the kings chains... France & other enemies of the king aided in financing and providing materials to the revolt 1776.... the rest is history.

    "Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. Frantz Fanon

    Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. Adam Smith

    All war is deception. Sun Tzu

    When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. Jean-Paul Sartre

    War grows out of the desire of the individual to gain advantage at the expense of his fellow man. Napoleon Hill

    Wars have ever been but another aristocratic mode of plundering and oppressing commerce. Richard Cobden

    The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through. Alexis de Tocqueville


    Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. Aristotle

    We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace. Jeane Kirkpatrick

    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. - Plato

    "Written laws are like spider's webs; they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but would be torn in pieces by the rich and powerful." Anacharsis - 6th Century BC

    There are three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. The mass of mankind is slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts; they have some ground for this view since they are imitating many of those in high places. People of superior refinement identify happiness with honour, or virtue, and
    slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts; they have some ground for this view since they are imitating many of those in high places. People of superior refinement identify happiness with honour, or virtue, and generally the political life. Aristotle

    It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire



    U
     
  22. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Blacks 4th ed.: Government: From the Latin gubernaculum. Signifies the instrument, the helm, whereby the ship to which the state was compared, was guided on its course by the “gubernator” or helmsman, & in that view, the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from the scheme & machinery of government. ...

    The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules & principles by which a nation or state is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions. A constitution, either written or unwritten, by which the rights & duties of citizens & public officers are prescribed & defined ... The sovereign or supreme power in a state or nation. The machinery by which the sovereign power in a state expresses its will & exercises its functions; or the framework of political institutions, departments, & offices, by means of which the executive, judicial, legislative, & administrative business of the state is carried on. ...

    The regulation, restraint, supervision or control which is exercised upon the individual members of an organized jural society by those invested with authority; or the act of exercising supreme political power or control.

    Government: Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11, S.Ct. 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

    Governmental act: An act in exercise of police power or in exercise of constitutional, legislative, administrative, or judicial powers conferred on federal, state or government for benefit of public. A step physically taken by persons capable of exercising the sovereign authority of the foreign nation. Any action of the federal government, or of a state, within its constitutional power.
     
  23. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,119
    Likes Received:
    24,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the quotes are cool and very good, but they do not reference building a nation,

    and as for building a govt from scratch more or less, of course persons would rely on history and what may or may not work,

    having said that, it doesn't CONVICT OUR FOUNDERS as tools/instruments/and without honor,

    very cool, except it doesn't address the question at hand,

    sure you may think it fits me perfectly, and yet the proof hasn't not been revealed as of yet,

    bunch of historical quotes and legal definitions, etc, with no regard to the primary question,

    Were the Founders real or Memorex?

    Now I do get the point, the whole idea of combining 13 states into a country or a nation is purported to be the genesis of the selling out of this country, and incriminating a whole bunch of people in the process.

    Yet, a question to ponder is:

    Nature abhors a vacuum,
    13 independent states could be argued to be a vacuum,
    that over time, states would begin fighting with each other for whatever reason, which would lead to a serious weakening overall.

    They they would be easy pickin's for anyone that comes a calling,

    In addition, strictly conjecture, but a combination of those states would allow for each state to have a say in its future, to create a document that is in all of their interests, and the combined whole would be stronger then the parts.

    Conversely, if left as 13 separate states, separate currencies, separate trade and so on, over time there most certainly would be winners and losers. Wherein, the stronger would takeover the weaker and force their will upon them, and negating any opportunity for the weaker to have a say in the future. They would be told what is what. That is without exterior influence.

    ----------

    as for the commentary that Britain was busy, so really didn't commit the resources to put us down,

    really???? A vast new world with proven resources, extremely valuable resources, and easier to get at than many other conquests, that they wouldn't commit the resources to put down this revolt? Seriously?

    and the revisit of the whole thing in 1812 with Britain saying what up?

    -----------

    I may be a denier, but so be it for the following reason,

    All cherished delusions would then be shattered, every one of them,

    The constitution would be complete rubbish,

    The Founders would be complete frauds,

    The daily discussions we have would be completely immaterial,

    There would be absolutely zero reason for continued discussion or even GIM,

    For at that point, there is no soul to all of this, it is all just a waste of breath and bandwidth,
     
    skyvike and BarnacleBob like this.
  24. noctis lucis caelum

    noctis lucis caelum Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    93
    isn't Jean-Paul Sartre a Marxist? cause i remember that name from somewhere....
     
  25. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Now you see exactly what I'm talking about.... "We either hang together or we hang separatley."

    Empires die with a whimper, they all mostly die from a thousand cuts. They dont go out in a blaze of glory...

    In the beginning of empire, many voluntarily join to receive tje benefits on the way up, but like rats flee a sinking ship on the way down....

    France, the Netherlands, Spain, etc. supported and financed a big cut to the King and the London money power when the American Aristocracy overthrew the DIRECT rule of English influence and also economic power... the cash terminated flowing to the direct control of the Crown & friends....

    Wars are expensive.... the colonies did not possess the economic power to fight this war, yet they did.... Englands enemies sponsored the Revolution! Which of course benefitted the Colonists....

    EVERYONE operates in self interest, if that self interest is a shared self interest that benefits ALL now & into the future it still doesnt equate to altruism.

    France, tbe Netherlands & Spain were not altruistic, they were attacking the Crowns money maker by using the colonist as proxy warriors in an economic war of attrition.

    I certainly understand the defects of the Articles and have perused many of the debates for & against the Articles.... The Constitution was the smart thing to do, as history has shown an ally one day, enemy the next.... the value of North Americas resources meant that w/o a strong defensive compact and the avassal state tomeans to wage war (taxation) the states would be vulnerable to attack.....

    My arguement in this debate is against the concept that the Founding Fathers were operating in altruism, nay, they saw opportunity and took it, and then protected themselves from the powers that created the opportunity.... instead of becoming vassal states they co-opted to be independent as they could under the circumstances...which gave rise to the Constitution compact... necessity not altruism....!
     
  26. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    What exactly is Americas RIGHTFUL & LAWFUL .GOV?

    Democracy or Republic???

    Blacks 4th ed.: Governmental de jure: A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy and administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which, nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced, that is to say, which receives not presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
     
  27. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Which is de jure, which is de facto? United States of America ruled by Constitution as a REPUBLIC or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. unlimited mob rule by DEMOCRACY?

    Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control in the state, as opposed to the true and lawful government: a government not established according to the constitution of the state or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. Aust. Jur. 324

    There are several degrees of what is called “de facto government”. Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from the customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of a country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored.

    Such a government might be more aptly denominated a “government of paramount force”, being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. smith, 8 Wall. 8, 9, 19 L. Ed. 361

    [The U.S. version of de facto government fits well within the definition and with respect to the following commentary, (the text in italics), differs only in the sense that the office holders were not forced out; they simply continued to "go along to get along" so that eventually, we wound up with a government holding its unlawful powers due to its repeated violations of procedure, law, and employment of deceit and fraud, including the use of grants and other forms of bribery in order to entice the state govs to abandon their sovereignty and betray their people.....
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2013
  28. noctis lucis caelum

    noctis lucis caelum Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    93
    So who controls America the Crown or Bankers?
     
  29. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Technically Congress.... LOL!

    "the business of the American people is business" as holders in due course, everythings for sale, including the law...

    Who's behind the curtain? Wish I knew...

    "The real rulers in Washington are invisible & exercise their power from behind the scenes." Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.

    "The conscious and intelligent maniplulation of organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of... We are dominated by a relatively small number of persons... It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind and who harness social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world." Edward Bernays
     
  30. noctis lucis caelum

    noctis lucis caelum Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Ok so are the founding fathers real patriots that actually wanted freedom?
     
  31. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    I dont know about "freedom," they always said liberty... liberty from English RULE, not commerce!
     
  32. noctis lucis caelum

    noctis lucis caelum Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Were still controlled by English commerce???
     
  33. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness[/B]."--Declaration of Independence

    First Continental Congress met briefly in Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from September 5 to October 26, 1774. It consisted of fifty-six delegates from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies.

    American Revolutionary War - April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 (8 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and 1 day)

    The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775 at Philadelphia’s State House, unanimously passing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

    July 4, 1776 Independence from the Crown Declared with the official signing of Declaration of Indepenence

    Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Created November 15, 1777, Ratified March 1, 1781

    Congress of the Confederation established by Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union meets from 1781 to 1789.

    1787 agreement was reached to organize a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with the mission of writing and proposing a number of amendments to the Articles of Confederation in order o improve the form of govrnment.

    May 25 to September 17, 1787, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the Constitutional Convention (also known as the Philadelphia Convention, [1]:31 the Federal Con
    vention, or the Grand Convention at Philadelphia) takes place.

    NOTE: The delegates at the Convention agreed that the new Federal Government would come into effect upon the ratification of just nine of the States, rather than requiring unanimous consent as the Articles of Confederation did.

    The Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution March 4, 1789.

    See full TIME LINE @ link below:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress

    Hmmm.... per the DECLARATION 1776: " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

    Question: Were the Articles of Confederation DESTRUCTIVE? If so, destructive to who or what?

    Question: Where did the Delegates of the Convention receive authority to declare that to ratify the Constitution 1787 only required nine of the thirteen states.

    Question: The Articles of Confederation were created & ratified by the Consent of the People, not Delegates. Where did the delegates or even the states receive the authority to dispose of the Articles in toto?

    Question: THE Convention was conviened to AMEND and REMEDY the DEFECTS within the Articles. Where did the delegates receive authority to create a completely new form of FEDERAL or central government?

    Question: Is the Constitutional .gov legitimately & legally exercising political, economic & social power over the states? Powers that inherently belong to sovereign states.

    Question:, Question:, Question and more Questions!
     
  34. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    Complaints Against
    King George III
    The colonists had a list of complaints against King George III of Great Britain. Column A shows how the complaints were written in the Declaration of Independence.
    Match each complaint in Column A with its meaning in Column B.
    [TABLE="width: 100%"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]
    Column A
    [/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]
    Column B
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]____1. He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. [/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]A. He has changed the way our colonies are governed.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____2. He has declared us out of his protection.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]B. He has forced us to keep troops in our houses.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____3. He has agreed to laws that called for quartering large bodies of troops among us.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]C. He has not passed laws that help the colonists.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____4. …cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]D. He has taxed us without consulting us.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____5. …imposing taxes on us without our consent.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]E. He has stopped us from trading with any other country.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____6. …depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]F. He has not allowed us to have jury trials. [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]_____7. …taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government.[/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]G. He has made war upon our people and our land.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 275"]____8. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    [/TD]
    [TD="width: 50"][/TD]
    [TD="width: 275"]H. He has said that he will not protect us from our enemies.[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
     
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  35. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    [h=3]Treaty of Paris, 1783[/h] Benjamin Franklin rejected informal peace overtures from Great Britain for a settlement that would provide the thirteen states with some measure of autonomy within the British empire. Franklin insisted on British recognition of American independence and refused to consider a peace separate from France, America’s staunch ally. Franklin did agree to negotiations with the British for an end to the war. Joined by peace commissioners John Adams and John Jay, Franklin engaged the British in formal negotiations beginning on September 27, 1782.

    Although Franklin demanded the cessation of Canada to an independent America, he knew that the British Government of Lord Shelburne, opposed to American independence, was unprepared to accept that offer. Two months of hard bargaining resulted in a preliminary articles of peace in which the British accepted American independence and boundaries—a bitter pill to George III—resolved the difficult issues of fishing rights on the Newfoundland banks and prewar debts owed British creditors, promised restitution of property lost during the war by Americans loyal to the British cause, and provided for the evacuation of British forces from the thirteen states. The preliminary articles signed in Paris on November 30, 1782, were only effective when a similar treaty was signed by Britain and France, which French Foreign Minister Vergennes quickly negotiated. France signed preliminary articles of peace with Great Britain on January 20, 1783, which were followed by a formal peace of Paris signed on September 3, 1783.

    Source : http://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/treaty
     
  36. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    The Articles created a sovereign, national government, and as such limited the rights of the states to conduct their own diplomacy and foreign policy. However, in practice this proved difficult to enforce, and the state of Georgia pursued its own independent policy regarding Spanish Florida, attempting to occupy disputed territories and threatening war if Spanish officials did not work to curb Indian attacks or refrain from harboring escaped slaves. Nor could the Confederation government prevent the landing of convicts that the British Government continued to export to its former colonies. The Articles also did not allow Congress sufficient authority to compel the states to enforce provisions of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that allowed British creditors to sue debtors for pre-Revolutionary debts, an unpopular clause that many state governments chose to ignore. Consequently, British forces continued to occupy forts in the Great Lakes region. These problems, combined with the Confederation government’s ineffectual response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced colonial leaders that a more powerful central government was necessary. This led to the Constitutional Convention that formulated the current Constitution of the United States.

    Source : http://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/articles
     
    RichG and BarnacleBob like this.
  37. RichG

    RichG GIM Radio Host Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what you are saying AD is that the States wanted a higher authority to regulate interstate matters with no malice towards individual freedoms. When it is all boiled down, isn't that what we got, and the Federal Goverment has assumed all these powers under the provisions of Commerce (UCC), and has used the premise to whittle away at freedom? :smokin:
     
  38. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    In effect, yes that was the beginning.........but during the Civil War with Lincoln preserving the Union and expanding Federal powers our freedoms were whittled down even more. Since then each President in conjunction with the Congress of the time has continued the whittling process (some more than others) until we end up with the mess we have today. So the Commerce Clause was the open door that our founders left open not knowing the severe implications of what to follow.
     
  39. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Kings do what Kings do by the theory of Divine Right, to wit;

    "The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act."

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

    The King considered the Colonists his property by divine rights, hence the objections of the colonists was a non-sequitor, moot, null, & void ab initio!

    It was by divine rights that the King owned not only the 13 colonies, but also the inhabits of every class of man that resided on HIS lands..... After all the Monarchy had invested capital into the various trading schemes and also provided defense from foreign invasion.... The monarchy also created an economic & legal system within the framework of the colonial organization (which mostly benefitted their profits via exploitation of human & natural resources).

    IOW the Monarchy and its investors possessed a great special interest in the colonies. For it was THEIR investments & the risk thereof that created the Colonial SYSTEM. This system was THEIR PROPERTY and it was THEIR right to manage their INVESTMENT PROPERTY anyway they saw fit to do so.....Under these circumstances WHY would the Monarchy cede to the demands of their EMPLOYEES? They wouldnt!

    IN proper perspective, the Revolutionary War resulted in the taking of property that belonged to the King and his investors.... it was up to that point THEIR capital investment, their trade, their economy and their defense that allowed the colonies to prosper.....

    Noting that at this precise period of history, imperialsm & merchantilism were being blended, this was the result of new navigational technology for sailing ships. Great commercial competition between TPTB of the period resulted.... England, an island nation benefitted greatly, unlike its European counterparts, they did not require massive expenditures of GNP/GDP to protect their borders, as they are an island. Whereas France, the Dutch, Spain, etc. had to maintain standing armies to repel invasion by land. Englands geographical location provided great economic & financial advantage against its political & commercial rivals.... IOW England could divert its resources to create a great Navy, as she was insulated from attacks by land... this one advantage set her above the rest of TPTB of the period....

    "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND." This advantage created alliances amongst the French, Dutch & Spanish herein after "the alliance".... all of which were to weak to challenge Englands supremecy on the high seas.... which they ruled with an iron fist.

    The alliance began using assymetrical warfare against the English to bleed them dry economically. Low intensity conflicts were created using hit & run tactics on their commercial & political allies, their merchant trading ships were targeted, etc. The hit & run tactics meant that the English were forced to defend their trade and trade routes 24/7.... which strained resources & profits. A condition that would, overtime lead to the liquidation & reorganization of the empire into a commonwealth.

    The King and his associates being attached assymetrically on all sides economicly, financially & politically were forced to extract greater & greater revenues from THEIR greatest cash cow & profit generator: the colonies of North America!

    This of course created great dissention amongst the colonists, which played into the hands of the alliance.....

    What a great coup, Englishmen fighting Englishmen.... a Revolutionary War would cut off commerce between the English & THEIR Colonies.... further weakening England. And of course, the alliance, France, Dutch & Spain came forth to finance the Revolution. Why wouldnt they?

    History evidences that most Revolutions & rebellions are inspired and influenced from outside political and/or economic forces that are almost always willing to offer aid & assistance in the new struggle....

    The major difference I am compelled to believe is that once the American Aristocracy won their so-called liberty from England, they immediately RERGANIZED politically & economically to protect themselves from the alliance and their domestic agents d& sympathizers.... Note Article 3, U.S. Const.

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    The de jure Articles of Confederation would prove a disaster if the alliance commenced to attack.... from a defensive standpoint, the Articles were/are weaker than circus lemonade, as they provide no means of equitable capital accumulation in the form of centralized taxation to repel a domestic or foreign invasion... IOW the Articles played into the hands of the alliance.... and what a prize America could be if the alliance controlled N.A. resources.... but thank goodness the American Aristocracy were educated in these ways and they were not fooled....

    Thats my interpretation from the history books! Necessity prevailed, not altruism, if the English won, they would be hanged, if the alliance attacked and won, they would be hanged.... as the alliance would not trust them after they fomented war against the Motherland.... Necessity is the mother of invention, thats why we got the constitution, an abstract document in the form of a political/economic trust into perpetuity!

    Thats my story and I'm sticking to it until I can be shown its in error.
     
    Argent Dragon likes this.
  40. Argent Dragon

    Argent Dragon Site Support Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    So fast forwarding to modern times, the occurrence of a R3volution today (in the US) is close to zero regardless of the temperament of the citizens ?
     
    noctis lucis caelum likes this.

Share This Page