I noticed that you suggested that the mods ban me in that other thread…
And I edited what you quoted there as I didn’t notice the time stamp.
"I noticed that you suggested that the mods ban me in that other thread…
And I edited what you quoted there as I didn’t notice the time stamp."
Yes. And they did. Justice served. We can move on now.
Mob justice from intolerant people who doesn’t love that kind? As long as it’s not a permaban, who cares? I was home all weekend anyway…
“ban” used to mean permanant.
“Suspension” used to mean temporary.
But, when you trade your small for a medium and a medium for a large…there is no small anymore.
You’ve read the rules. By participating in the forum, you are agreeing to abide by them. If you have a complaint then talk to a moderator since I am no longer one. Honestly, they are nice people. A lot nicer then I would have been back when I was one but we grow older and wiser.
Bastards. In my government class essentially our first essay was to criticize Charles Beard’s interpretation of history. Being drunk on Madison’s masterpiece, I blithely criticized Beard and idolized the founders. I thought that Beard was arguing against free markets, for some reason. Instead, he might have been arguing against corporatism. Any good books by Beard I should read? I want to give him a second chance. Was the Constitution created in corporatism.?
Whoa, what the hell? WHO PUT THIS THREAD HERE!?
“Bastards. In my government class essentially our first essay was to criticize Charles Beard’s interpretation of history. Being drunk on Madison’s masterpiece, I blithely criticized Beard and idolized the founders. I thought that Beard was arguing against free markets, for some reason. Instead, he might have been arguing against corporatism. Any good books by Beard I should read? I want to give him a second chance. Was the Constitution created in corporatism.?”
Eh you might not have been getting too off a vibe. Beard was a progressive so he did not care much for free-markets.
If anyone cares to continue this discussion, I have read Max Elbing’s A Revolution in Favor of Government. I have found the work to be very insightful and would recommend it to anyone interested in understanding the psychology of early American political figures. It certainly dispels this myth that the constitutional government we have today was meant to be powerless, small and bend to the will of the states. In fact, the constitution was created to provoke the opposite effect: It was meant to create a strong, centralize, European-style of government that was meant to answer questions of a fiscal and military nature. How much and what type of taxes/imports/duties and the establishment and defining of a standing army.
Out of curiosity have you read Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation? I stumbled upon it by accident some months ago but haven’t got around to reading it.
http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Action-under-Articles-Confederation/dp/0521782090
No I have not but it seems interesting.
Shame. I haven’t read it myself but I read the original paper ("“Marginal Cost Sharing and the Articles of Confederatio”) that lead to the book and the responses it received. I brought it up since it tackles the question if the Confederacy really failed and shows that contrary to popular opinion the Confederacy did manage to collect taxes and manage national affairs. It just happens to be that there are few real national affairs that meritted its existence.
And if there wasn’t really merit for the Confederacy’s existence, why’d it get replaced by an even more centralized national government?
“And if there wasn’t really merit for the Confederacy’s existence, why’d it get replaced by an even more centralized national government?”
I think this is because there are certain political figures that wanted a more European style of government because they saw the articles as being too democratic and open to the populace. I do not think people realize that the developing United States was very close to being a direct democracy.
The Constitution is a lot more democratically centralist than the Articles of Confederation was.
The Articles of Confederation was somewhat Statist, but it was not a failure at all.
You have to be more detailed in what you mean, I do not think it is possible to be “democratically centralist.” It seems to me to be kind of like saying concentrated limitlessness. And the Articles of Confederation were a failure to certain people. It all depends on how you look at it.
How was the Constitution sold so well though? I know some of the anti-federalists like George Mason and Patrick Henry shifted their opinions after the French Revolution scared them. The best I can make out of it the Articles were overthrown without the general population doing a thing to stop it.
That’s an interesting question and one that the Edling book actually answers. To be a statesmen in this period, one was expected not to have personal interest in the matters of government. Gordon Wood calles it “disinterestedness” and actually has a well written article on it though if you have one of his works about the revolutionary period, it is included in it to a large degree. So you have statesmen openly declaring before the Constitutional Congress that they will not enter debates with set opinions but instead leave themselves open to be influence by their peers. These were the individuals representing their respective states and the passing of the Constitution was hotly contested. Due to the fact that it was so long ago and we have had it for so long, it seems like it passed without hinderence but it was very much contested.
Through threats of force and extreme fraud.
http://americanvision.org/6155/the-truth-about-the-federalist-papers/
Let me know what you think.
@ andrew Cain:
The Confederation could not have turned the country into a direct democracy because individuals could not vote on national issues.
“The Confederation could not have turned the country into a direct democracy because individuals could not vote on national issues.”
I didn’t say it was a direct democracy, I was just commenting on how close some state constitutions came to being direct democracies which would translate into the Articles in varying degrees. The philosophy of republicanism during the revolution further accentuated this fact.