# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Did the Articles of Confederation Establish a "Perpetual Union"?

## BuddyRey

I was just doing a little reading on Wikipedia to try and get some historical context on the Articles of Confederation and how it differed from the Constitution, when I ran across something that basically sunk my hopes for State Nullification for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

How come we were never told about this, especially by authors like Thomas Woods who know practically everything there is to know about the history of the Constitution?  I was under the impression that the AoC were supposed to be a lot less conducive to federal aggrandizement, and that that's why the federalists hated it so much.  But why would they hate a document that gave them _carte blanche_ to terrorize the states all the wanted and call upon some mystical nonsense like "Perpetal Union?

I know I'm all over the place and this post doesn't make much sense, but I'm pretty shaken up over this.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Pericles

*ARTICLE I*
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". 
*II*
 Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. 

*III*
 The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. 
*IV*
 The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. 
  If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense. 
  Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State. 



.....


*ARTICLE XIII.*
 Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. 
  And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. 
  DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America. 



A few things of note to board members concerned with whether the BoR applies to the states under the current Constitution.


Note the supremacy clause for Congress in exercising the powers delegated to it - not much different from the language used for the federal government later, and the language in Article XIII stating that the Articles are the supreme law of the land binding every state just as in Article VI of the Constitution.


The big difference is in the creation of the federal executive and legislative branches of government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was just doing a little reading on Wikipedia to try and get some historical context on the Articles of Confederation and how it differed from the Constitution, when I ran across something that basically sunk my hopes for State Nullification for good.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
> 
> How come we were never told about this, especially by authors like Thomas Woods who know practically everything there is to know about the history of the Constitution?  I was under the impression that the AoC were supposed to be a lot less conducive to federal aggrandizement, and that that's why the federalists hated it so much.  But why would they hate a document that gave them _carte blanche_ to terrorize the states all the wanted and call upon some mystical nonsense like "Perpetal Union?
> 
> I know I'm all over the place and this post doesn't make much sense, but I'm pretty shaken up over this.


I know it's not a popular opinion around here, but the AoC did a better job of what a Constitution is theoretically supposed to do. Long-timers should be well aware of why I believe this, so I won't belabor the point.  Ciao.

----------


## NightOwl

> I wouldn't get all bothered by it.  The Constitution and The Articles of Confederation have no legal foundation without the Declaration of Independence since it is the DoI that recognizes State sovereignty.


That's like saying our rights don't exist unless the Bill of Rights is there to recognize them.  The DoI merely recognizes, but of course does not grant, state sovereignty, because the concept was already there to exist.  Virginia declared its independence in May of 1776, so they were obviously exercising their sovereignty before the DoI was even written.

----------


## NightOwl

> I was just doing a little reading on Wikipedia to try and get some historical context on the Articles of Confederation and how it differed from the Constitution, when I ran across something that basically sunk my hopes for State Nullification for good.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
> 
> How come we were never told about this, especially by authors like Thomas Woods who know practically everything there is to know about the history of the Constitution?  I was under the impression that the AoC were supposed to be a lot less conducive to federal aggrandizement, and that that's why the federalists hated it so much.  But why would they hate a document that gave them _carte blanche_ to terrorize the states all the wanted and call upon some mystical nonsense like "Perpetal Union?
> 
> I know I'm all over the place and this post doesn't make much sense, but I'm pretty shaken up over this.


You shouldn't be shaken up by it.  "Perpetual" is an example of eighteenth-century rhetoric.  There are plenty of "perpetual" treaties that were signed in the eighteenth century that are long forgotten.  The word "perpetual" simply means there's no built-in sunset provision.  So you can breathe a sign of relief, and exonerate Tom Woods and everyone else.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I was just doing a little reading on Wikipedia to try and get some historical context on the Articles of Confederation and how it differed from the Constitution, when I ran across something that basically sunk my hopes for State Nullification for good.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
> 
> How come we were never told about this, especially by authors like Thomas Woods who know practically everything there is to know about the history of the Constitution?  I was under the impression that the AoC were supposed to be a lot less conducive to federal aggrandizement, and that that's why the federalists hated it so much.  But why would they hate a document that gave them _carte blanche_ to terrorize the states all the wanted and call upon some mystical nonsense like "Perpetal Union?
> 
> I know I'm all over the place and this post doesn't make much sense, but I'm pretty shaken up over this.


Good post.

This is the 800-pound gorilla in the corner that the enemies of the US Constitution don't want you to know about.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I know it's not a popular opinion around here, but the AoC did a better job of what a Constitution is theoretically supposed to do. Long-timers should be well aware of why I believe this, so I won't belabor the point.  Ciao.


According to the Founding Fathers who actually had to live under the AoC, what you say is totally false.

If you have information that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin didn't have about those times, please let us know.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

So called "anti-Federalists" and/or opponents of the Virginia Plan who defected to the Constitution:

Edmund Randolph - voted for the Constitution at ratification and became the first US Attorney General.

George Mason - supported the Virginia Plan.  Voted against final Constitution because it did not have a Bill-of-Rights, did not give Virginia proportional representation in the Senate, and allowed the slave trade for 20 years.  Died in 1792.

Elbridge Gerry - became a member of the 1st House of Representatives and later became Vice-president.

Patrick Henry - Agreed to support the Constitution and run for federal office in 1799, but died before the election could be held.

John Dickinson - supported the Constitution after the states were given equal representation in the Senate.

William Paterson - same as Dickinson

Gunning Bedford - same as Dickinson & Paterson

Richard Henry Lee - swore allegiance to the Constitution and became a member of the 1st Senate.

Robert Yates - According to John Lansing, who published Yates Notes on the Constitution in 1821, Yates supported the Constitution after it was ratified by all 13 states.  Joined the Federalist Party.

John Lansing - see Yates above

John Francis Mercer - joined the US House in 1792

Luther Martin - joined the Federalist Party in 1791

George Clinton - swore allegiance to the Constitution, and became the 4th Vice-president of the United States.

Sam Adams - supported the Constitution at ratification.

Paul Revere - supported the Constitution at ratification.

James Monroe - opposed ratification, but immediately changed his mind after it was ratified.

Here it is, the 16 leading lights of the AoC bowel movement.  They all jumped on James Madison's bandwagon!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> According to the Founding Fathers who actually had to live under the AoC, what you say is totally false.
> 
> If you have information that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin didn't have about those times, please let us know.



Apparently, this needs to be posted regularly, because folks around here aren't reading it:

*The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)*


Also, check out the book "Hamilton's Curse" by friend of RP (and Austrian economist/historian) Tom Woods.  I'll leave you to read for yourself, as I'm not interested in another protracted debate that I'll just win anyway.

----------


## NightOwl

> Apparently, this needs to be posted regularly, because folks around here aren't reading it:
> 
> *The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)*
> 
> 
> Also, check out the book "Hamilton's Curse" by friend of RP (and Austrian economist/historian) Tom Woods.  I'll leave you to read for yourself, as I'm not interested in another protracted debate that I'll just win anyway.


Hamilton's Curse is written by Tom DiLorenzo.

----------


## NightOwl

> Good post.
> 
> This is the 800-pound gorilla in the corner that the enemies of the US Constitution don't want you to know about.


Did you read my comment above?  800-pound gorilla?? This isn't even a 2-ounce gnat.  "Perpetual" simply meant it had no built-in sunset provision.  If it were really perpetual, why aren't we still living under it?

----------


## NightOwl

> Here it is, the 16 leading lights of the AoC bowel movement.  They all jumped on James Madison's bandwagon!


Yes, and I'm sure if they could be here today, they'd all be thrilled at their decision.

On the other hand, maybe they'd conclude that the alleged disadvantages of the Articles of Confederation were laughably trivial compared to what the Constitution had wrought.  Oh, but they're not interpreting the Constitution correctly, you reply.  How long are we going to carry on with that charade?  Yes, they obviously are misinterpreting it, but why is this brilliant document so impotent to help us in this situation?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yes, and I'm sure if they could be here today, they'd all be thrilled at their decision.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe they'd conclude that the alleged disadvantages of the Articles of Confederation were laughably trivial compared to what the Constitution had wrought.  Oh, but they're not interpreting the Constitution correctly, you reply.  How long are we going to carry on with that charade?  Yes, they obviously are misinterpreting it, but why is this brilliant document so impotent to help us in this situation?


If the federalists AND the anti-Federalists were around in 1913, we would:

1) not have elected Woodrow Wilson

2) not had the Federal Reserve Bank (which is much worse than the 1st & 2nd banks)

3) no income tax amendment.

4) no entry into WWI

5) no Harrison Act or Drug War

6) no 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol

7) no 17th amendment to directly elect Senators.

8) the decision in 1910 to fix the House size would have been reversed.

9) Charles Beard would have been debunked.

10) The worlwide influenza attacks would have been contained and much less deadly. (Wilson allowed infected soldiers to travel all over the world and all over the United states, he was afraid if people knew about the plague, it would hurt his war effort)

11) The mass murderers in the 1913 Italian Hall incident would have been exposed and prosecuted.

12) Some black people would have remained in appointed positions in the federal government (Wilson fired all the blacks and replaced them with whites)

13) Lochner vs New York (1905) would not have been overturned.

You have a problem.  You blame the Founding Fathers for what happened in 1913.  Before 1913, the federal government had very little impact on the lives of most people in the United States.  When it did have an impact, the impact was often positive rather than negative.

After 1913, the balance between state and federal power was broken.  The federal government grew more impacting and less positive, while the states lost power.  But the people and the States let this happen, because they forgot the principles of the Founding Fathers.

All real power still lays with the States and the People.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Did you read my comment above?  800-pound gorilla?? This isn't even a 2-ounce gnat.  "Perpetual" simply meant it had no built-in sunset provision.  If it were really perpetual, why aren't we still living under it?


So you are saying perpetual doesn't mean perpetual?  You are spewing doublespeak.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Please explain the concept of state sovereignty under the authority of a monarchy?
> 
> I think it is called the "Declaration of Independence" for good reason.  It is the legal foundation of the United States.
> 
> And the 800 pound gorilla by the way is the Constitution.  I will never understand how people can advocate a document as the means to an end for limited government when the very document they are advocating represents 200+ years of failure at sustaining limited government.


No, the 800 pound gorilla is the Articles of Confederation:

Let's compare the success of the Revolutionary War with the Second War of Independence:

The Revolution was fought under the AoC and the similar Articles of Association.

The War of 1812 under the Constitution

The Revolution was fought before England experienced any significant industrial revolution

The War of 1812 was fought _after_ England had industrialized, but before any industrialization in the South and very little in the North

The Revolution was lead by George Washington

The Wo1812 was lead by James Madison

The Revolution had 25,000 battle wounded + 8000 battle deaths

The Wo1812 had 4000 battle wounded + 2000 battle deaths

(note that weaponry was more deadly in 1812-1815 than in 1775-1781)

In the Revolution, the 4 largest cities in the US were occupied for long periods of time; Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston

In the Wo1812, none of the 4 largest cities were occupied ever

In the Revolution, we had France as an ally

In the Wo1812, we didn't have France as an ally

In the Revolution, Washington (reluctantly, from war desperation) had deserters shot and declared limited martial law

In the Wo1812, Madison never suspended civil liberties

The Revloution resulted in British control of the Great Lakes, Atlantic ocean, the Mississippi, Gulf of Mexicao, and the West Indies

The Wo1812 resulted in free trade on the Great Lakes, the Atlantic ocean, the Mississippi, Gulf of Mexico, and the West Indies

Conclusions:

We did a lot better under the Constitution than under the AoC.

We did better under the Father of the Constitution, than under the Father of our Country.

----------


## Cowlesy

> You shouldn't be shaken up by it.  "Perpetual" is an example of eighteenth-century rhetoric.  There are plenty of "perpetual" treaties that were signed in the eighteenth century that are long forgotten.  The word "perpetual" simply means there's no built-in sunset provision.  So you can breathe a sign of relief, and exonerate Tom Woods and everyone else.


Muchos gracias, senor.  Having not studied much eighteenth century literature, I was unaware of the variant usage of the word "perpetual."

----------


## Pericles

> No, the 800 pound gorilla is the Articles of Confederation:
> 
> Let's compare the success of the Revolutionary War with the Second War of Independence:
> 
> The Revolution was fought under the AoC and the similar Articles of Association.
> 
> The War of 1812 under the Constitution
> 
> The Revolution was fought before England experienced any significant industrial revolution
> ...


A few corrections:

(1) Wepaonry not different with the exception of the British use of the siege rocket - which was a very inaccurate weapon.

(A) US standard infantry musket was the 1763 Charleville - same as used in the Revolution, the 1795 Springfield being a direct copy of the Charleville.

(B) British standard infantry musket was the 3rd model Bess, as opposed to the 2nd model of the Revolution - both .75 cal flintlocks.

(C) Tube artillery same as at the time of the Revolution.

(2) Role of France

(A) Direct support during the Revolution

(B) During the War of 1812, Britain was fighting Napoleon, the whole affair in North America being nothing more than an annoyance to Britain, the abdication of Napoleon in 1814 freeing the British Army for the New Orleans campaign.

So, the US did so much better under the Constition that we agreed to status quo ante bellum in the Treaty of Ghent. the only British "concession" being on the issue of impressment, which Britain had agreed to the US position before the start of the war.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> A few corrections:
> 
> (1) Wepaonry not different with the exception of the British use of the siege rocket - which was a very inaccurate weapon.
> 
> (A) US standard infantry musket was the 1763 Charleville - same as used in the Revolution, the 1795 Springfield being a direct copy of the Charleville.
> 
> (B) British standard infantry musket was the 3rd model Bess, as opposed to the 2nd model of the Revolution - both .75 cal flintlocks.
> 
> (C) Tube artillery same as at the time of the Revolution.
> ...


At the end of the War of 1812, Napolean was gone.  The British made major offensives, and were beaten soundly at all three major battles; Plattesburg, Baltimore, and New Orleans.  The US was getting stronger as the war went on.

The Treaty if Ghent does not capture the whole stroy.  Madison wanted the war over.  After it ended, there was no more impressment and there was free trade.  This was ironed out in the Treaty of 1818 and the Monroe Doctrine.

There was a world of difference before and after the War of 1812; before we had 1000 ships seized and 7000 men kidnapped.

Afterward, none.  Then we went and kicked the $#@! out of the Barbary Pirates.

The Revolution was the exact opposite.  Before the war, there was free trade everywhere but New England.  After the war the British and French ruled the oceans.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure.  You think you know more than the Founding Fathers, but YOU weren't there, they were.  The Articles of Confederation stunk big time.  The were ripe for military takeover and dictatorship.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Another problem with the Articles of Confederation is that they are and were supported by racists.  It is a limited hangout from those that support slavery and Jim Crow laws.

Under the Articles of Confederation, we would still have slavery and Jim Crow laws in half the country.  No wonder you guys hate Abe Lincoln so much; he freed your slaves.

Give it up.  Ever wonder why so few black people support Ron Paul?  You got it.

----------


## torchbearer

> Another problem with the Articles of Confederation is that they are and were supported by racists.  It is a limited hangout from those that support slavery and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, we would still have slavery and Jim Crow laws in half the country.  No wonder you guys hate Abe Lincoln so much; he freed your slaves.
> 
> Give it up.  Ever wonder why so few black people support Ron Paul?  You got it.


um, under the AoC we'd only have bad laws in some states. Under the current regime, we now have bad laws that effect all the states.
If you are saying that the only reason we had slavery is because of a confederate government, I'd like to challenge you on that assumption.
Simply look at england- they had slavery (non-confederate in nature) and they abolished slavery without a northern army slaughtering groves of people.

In fact, had the south not succeeded in whipping the armies of the north up to 1863- Lincoln would have never pulled the political moral manuever.
Had the north stomped the south in the first year- there would have been no proclamation. It was only after the northerners were starting to wane in their support of lincoln's war did lincoln decide to change the focus of the war in 1863.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> um, under the AoC we'd only have bad laws in some states. Under the current regime, we now have bad laws that effect all the states.
> If you are saying that the only reason we had slavery is because of a confederate government, I'd like to challenge you on that assumption.
> Simply look at england- they had slavery (non-confederate in nature) and they abolished slavery without a northern army slaughtered groves of people.
> 
> In fact, had the south not succeeded in whipping the armies of the north up to 1863- Lincoln would have never pulled the political moral manuever.
> Had the north stomped the south in the first year- there would have been no proclamation. It was only after the northerners were starting to wane in their support of lincoln's war did lincoln decide to change the focus of the war in 1863.


yeah, we have bad laws in all the states; like equal rights for black people.  I know that upsets you.  Have you ever read the Constitution?

It says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens [including black people] of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person [including black people] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [including black people] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This was passed in 1868.  Yet almost 100 years later, southern states still had segregation and other f'd up racist laws.  They had blatant Jim Crow laws right up until and after WWII.  You wonder how the federal government got so powerful?  Well look no further than southern racism.  Most people don't believe in states rights anymore because the south abused the privilege.

There would have been no Lincoln with the b*llsh*t slavery in the south.  You know, you'd think by 1860, they could have done something about the problem.  Everyone else had, outside of Brazil.

Yeah, that's right, England abolished slavery without a war.  But not the south.  Nope.  They would still have slavery down there if not for the federal government.  Heck, there Jim Crow laws during the Wilson era were pretty damn close to slavery.  Ever heard of sharecropping?

That's 50 years after the slaves were freed!  50 years!  How long does it take?

How long exactly did you think that black people would put up this this?  Frederick Douglass was out there fighting the evil.  The Founding Fathers can't solve every problem, you know.  They left us a Constitution, a Bill-of-Rights, a Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner, Common Sense, the Federalist Papers, the Autobiography of Ben Franklin, and the Last of the Mohicans.

Frederick Douglass read all this stuff.  These books and writings promote LIBERTY.  That's why Douglass supported the Constitution.  He read the Notes of the Federal Convention by James Madison.  People got sick of talking about doing something, and then Lincoln showed up.  Slavery was getting worse in 1860, not better.  We had 4,000,000 slaves in the south in 1860, but only 700,000 in the whole country in 1790.  The North figured it out, but not the south.

Yeah, keep hiding behind your twisted versions of history and twisted version of the Constitution, but I ain't buying it.  Neither do black people.

It's YOUR fault and people like you that allowed the _coup d'etat_ of 1913!

----------


## torchbearer

> It's YOUR fault and people like you that allowed the _coup d'etat_ of 1913!



Ok, you got me. It is all my fault.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Another blanket statement of BS.


Wrong.  The Founding Fathers did not want slavery.  They expected the next generation or two do do something about it.  In the North, something was done, it was eliminated.

But not in the south.  Racists like John Calhoun kept right on backing slavery well into the 19th century.  "States Rights" people used it as code-word for racism.

I support INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Do you understand, "States Rights" is not individual liberty?  It is STATE liberty.  

You think that "States Rights" trumps the individual liberty for the black people.  It doesn't.

States do not, and have never had the "right" to take any liberty from black people.

You are a STATIST.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ok, you got me. It is all my fault.


Hah, really funny.  Do you think slavery is funny?  Do you think Jim Crow laws are funny?  Do you think salves being lashed is funny?  Do you think slave girls being gang raped is funny?  How about splitting up families, think that's funny, too?

I don't.

You neeed to dump your racist ideas. you are dragging down the Ron Paul movement, and people like you allowed slavery and Jim Crow laws to exist for close to  200 years after the Declaration of Independence.

----------


## torchbearer

> Hah, really funny.  Do you think slavery is funny?  Do you think Jim Crow laws are funny?  Do you think salves being lashed is funny?  Do you think slave girls being gang raped is funny?  How about splitting up families, think that's funny, too?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> You neeed to dump your racist ideas. you are dragging down the Ron Paul movement, and people like you allowed slavery and Jim Crow laws to exist for close to  200 years after the Declaration of Independence.


which ideas of mine are racist?
keep in mind- I want you to list my ideas, please include my own words quoted to show the ideas I support, and how they are racist. 
Then show how I am racist and how I'm responsible for 1913.

Then maybe, I'll show you how you are acting like a complete retard, but that part isn't relevant since its obvious to anyone who reads your post.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> In fact, had the south not succeeded in whipping the armies of the north up to 1863- Lincoln would have never pulled the political moral manuever.
> Had the north stomped the south in the first year- there would have been no proclamation. It was only after the northerners were starting to wane in their support of lincoln's war did lincoln decide to change the focus of the war in 1863.


This comment makes no sense.  I never said Lincoln was a do-gooder.  You are putting out the straw man.  I said that Lincoln is a creation of southern racism.  It gave an excuse for the federal government to expand.  They used the good deed on ending slavery (and later Jim Crow), to expand in other areas.

And had the North tromped the south in the beginning of the war, that's right, we could still been stuck with a bigger government AND slavery, even worse than what we got.

But if the south had started to end slavery, instead of expand it, the we would have been no Lincoln and no Civil War.  We might still have the kind of Union imagined by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

----------


## torchbearer

I actually had to looks up at the URL bar to make sure i didn't end up on the Obama forums.
Is this the new plan of attack?
Just calling people statist and racist? Hopefully causing enough flaming to drive off more activist in hopes they stop "supporting the state" by participating in politics?
It isn't going to work. A bit obvious- unless you really are this dense... but i don't believe that you are.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> which ideas of mine are racist?
> keep in mind- I want you to list my ideas, please include my own words quoted to show the ideas I support, and how they are racist. 
> Then show how I am racist and how I'm responsible for 1913.
> 
> Then maybe, I'll show you how you are acting like a complete retard, but that part isn't relevant since its obvious to anyone who reads your post.


You think "states rights" trump the individual liberty of black people.  That is racist, statist, and anti-Liberty.  And the people who think the way you do made 1913 happen.

----------


## torchbearer

> This comment makes no sense.  I never said Lincoln was a do-gooder.  You are putting out the straw man.  I said that Lincoln is a creation of southern racism.  It gave an excuse for the federal government to expand.  They used the good deed on ending slavery (and later Jim Crow), to expand in other areas.
> 
> And had the North tromped the south in the beginning of the war, that's right, we could still been stuck with a bigger government AND slavery, even worse than what we got.
> 
> But if the south had started to end slavery, instead of expand it, the we would have been no Lincoln and no Civil War.  We might still have the kind of Union imagined by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.


Lincoln won the nomination from the party of slavery abolition.
See he was just a southern plant used in a grand conspiracy to undermine freedom for slaves. 
Those chemtrails must have hit you hard today.

----------


## torchbearer

> You think "states rights" trump the individual liberty of black people.  That is racist, statist, and anti-Liberty.  And the people who think the way you do made 1913 happen.


when did I say that?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Lincoln won the nomination from the party of slavery abolition.


Oh, the south still had slavery in 1860?

You are making my point.  Lincoln wouldn't have won any nomination on an anti-slavery platform had slavery already been abolished.  Lincoln was a racist, too, you know.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> when did I say that?


Well, yopu don't support the 14th amendment or judicial review, for starters.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well, yopu don't support the 14th amendment or judicial review, for starters.


for what reasons?

----------


## torchbearer

> Oh, the south still had slavery in 1860?
> 
> You are making my point.  Lincoln wouldn't have won any nomination on an anti-slavery platform had slavery already been abolished.  Lincoln was a racist, too, you know.


You are a racist. I know this is hard to deal with... but you should really examine your racist tendancies before they get out of control.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I actually had to looks up at the URL bar to make sure i didn't end up on the Obama forums.
> Is this the new plan of attack?
> Just calling people statist and racist? Hopefully causing enough flaming to drive off more activist in hopes they stop "supporting the state" by participating in politics?
> It isn't going to work. A bit obvious- unless you really are this dense... but i don't believe that you are.


Good one.  At least Obama supporters supprt the 14th amendment and judicial review.  You still haven't got it, have you?  Southern racism has been the primary vehicle for 200 years for the federal government to expand it powers.

The federal government, under cover of doing something good (like ending slavery or Jim Crow), warps the Constitution.  They trumpet the good things, and then the public takes their eye of the ball.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Wrong.  The Founding Fathers did not want slavery.  They expected the next generation or two do do something about it.  In the North, something was done, it was eliminated.
> 
> But not in the south.  Racists like John Calhoun kept right on backing slavery well into the 19th century.  "States Rights" people used it as code-word for racism.
> 
> I support INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
> 
> Do you understand, "States Rights" is not individual liberty?  It is STATE liberty.  
> 
> You think that "States Rights" trumps the individual liberty for the black people.  It doesn't.
> ...


With all due respect, I don't think it's fair to call them statists.  Everyone around here wants individual liberty.  What our Founders meant by states' rights was that the federal government only had purview over a few select things (ie. enumerated powers) and the rest was to be left up to the states and the people.  The idea was that the closer the decisions were made to us, the more influence we were to have over them.  But yeah, you're right that we were largely to be self-governed.

The primary reason for the Civil War, wasn't slavery.  There are some good books about it by Thomas DiLorenzo.  

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-A...5731989&sr=8-1

----------


## torchbearer

> Good one.  At least Obama supporters supprt the 14th amendment and judicial review.  You still haven't got it, have you?  Southern racism has been the primary vehicle for 200 years for the federal government to expand it powers.
> 
> The federal government, under cover of doing something good (like ending slavery or Jim Crow), warps the Constitution.  They trumpet the good things, and then the public takes their eye of the ball.


I have never stated an opinion on judicial review. but i've seen the argument that the constitution never granted the power. sounds like something worth looking into.
All you other crap is crap, and I can prove it by you answering one question-

Why do I not support the 14th amendment?

----------


## NightOwl

> Please explain the concept of state sovereignty under the authority of a monarchy?
> 
> I think it is called the "Declaration of Independence" for good reason.  It is the legal foundation of the United States.
> 
> And the 800 pound gorilla by the way is the Constitution.  I will never understand how people can advocate a document as the means to an end for limited government when the very document they are advocating represents 200+ years of failure at sustaining limited government.


I'm not talking about "state sovereignty under the authority of a monarchy."  I said Virginia declared its independence before any "Declaration of Independence" was signed.  Jefferson, in fact, wanted to get back from Washington because he was convinced that what was going on in the states was far more important.  Virginians dated their independence to their own declaration in May.

No argument with you on the failure of the Constitution to limit government, though.  How much more obvious could that be?

----------


## NightOwl

For anyone looking for a systematic reply to this Galileo character, who says we're hurting Ron Paul by defending Dr. Paul's own views, and by not simply repeating the conventional wisdom like a bunch of robots ("you're a statist if you favor decentralism!"), I recommend this:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

Long but well worth it.  Dr. Livingston is Professor of Philosophy at Emory University.  He makes an overwhelming moral argument against Galileo's conventional view.

There's also this shorter piece:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html

In short: don't be ashamed to side with Thomas Jefferson, along with the entire libertarian tradition, from Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard to Frank Meyer and Ron Paul.  You can defeat the simplistic silliness of the other side, and its bumper-sticker arguments.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The primary reason for the Civil War, wasn't slavery.  There are some good books about it by Thomas DiLorenzo.  
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-A...5731989&sr=8-1


I have read three of DiLorenzo's books.  Did the Civil War start because the Lincoln wanted to invade and end slavery?

No.

Was lsavery the primary underlying cause for most of the friction between north and south?

Yes.

Read President James Buchanan's memoirs.  He debunks most of what DiLorenzo says regarding the causes of the Civil War.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

So a state that enslaves 45% of it's population; does it have too much or too little power.

The defenders of the AoC say it has too little power.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## CCTelander

> The constitution you are so fond of did not put an end to slavery upon its implementation.  Quite the opposite, it prolonged it in the interests of the union.


I'm pretty much in agreement with you LFOD, but, to be fair, the CONstitution did ban the further importation of slaves after a certain date. So it did take at least this small step in the right direction.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The constitution you are so fond of did not put an end to slavery upon its implementation.  Quite the opposite, it prolonged it in the interests of the union.


So the people in South Carolina did not prolong slavery, it was the Constitution that did it?

Check.

You are making a statist argument.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yes shame on people for wanting cheaper slave produced rice.  Good people could have quickly brought about an end to the matter boycotting all slave produced goods such as rice but northerners wanted cheap rice too.
> 
> Should I criticize you for shopping at Walmart because it exploits labor in other countries the same way slaves were exploited?


So you are saying slavery is OK, if people in the south want cheaper rice?  Yikes!

And do you understand economics?  The south would have been more productive without slavery.  Free people work harder than slaves.

And slavery is a lot worse than "exploited labor" in foreign nations.  Many libertarian economists believe that factory jobs making cheap stuff for Walmart are better jobs than any else to be had in poor third world nations.  Also, consumers are not responsible for checking out every employment arrangment of stuff they buy, such a thing is nearly impossible, and a waste of time.  The people who own the slaves are at fault, not the buyers of goods, that is individual responsibilty, a libertarian concept.




> Like Ron Paul says... every other nation put an end to slavery without civil war.


The south was not putting an end to slavery.  It was getting worse every deacde from 1790 until 1860, as the US census shows.

And even when slavery was ended, the Jim Crow laws kept getting worse.  They still had poll taxes in the south until the 1960s.

Ron Paul says that the south SHOULD have gotten rid of slavery without a Civil War.  They should have, but they didn;t.  They didn't even try.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I am going to ignore your trivial attempt at accusations.  Slavery is forced labor and my views on force and coercion are well known.
> 
> Instead of taking personal responsibility you would rather have other people do the bidding of liberty for you.  Regarding the Jim Crow laws you are griping about what state do you live in?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._laws_by_State
> 
> And what of the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson:
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=163&invol=537
> ...


So its now the Supreme Court's fault that the South passed Jim Crow laws?

And its the Constitution's fault that the Supreme Court can't understand simple English?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So its now the Supreme Court's fault that the South passed Jim Crow laws?
> 
> And its the Constitution's fault that the Supreme Court can't understand simple English?


If the Supreme Court can't read simple English, this represents a flawed system, so yes-it is indirectly the Constitution's fault.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If the Supreme Court can't read simple English, this represents a flawed system, so yes-it is indirectly the Constitution's fault.


That's exactly the same argument that statists make, who want to expand the powers of the central government.

----------


## Imperial

> So called "anti-Federalists" and/or opponents of the Virginia Plan who defected to the Constitution:
> 
> Edmund Randolph - voted for the Constitution at ratification and became the first US Attorney General.
> 
> George Mason - supported the Virginia Plan.  Voted against final Constitution because it did not have a Bill-of-Rights, did not give Virginia proportional representation in the Senate, and allowed the slave trade for 20 years.  Died in 1792.
> 
> Elbridge Gerry - became a member of the 1st House of Representatives and later became Vice-president.
> 
> Patrick Henry - Agreed to support the Constitution and run for federal office in 1799, but died before the election could be held.
> ...


What would you rather do? Bemoan the loss of liberty from the outside or join the battle and fight in the bowels of government?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> What would you rather do? Bemoan the loss of liberty from the outside or join the battle and fight in the bowels of government?


Got any examples?

Face it.  James Madison was the smartest, most brilliant, and most learned Founding Father.  He is the Architect of the American Republic, and the greatest defender of LIBERTY that man has ever known.

Do what you want to tear down our liberties.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's exactly the same argument that statists make, who want to expand the powers of the central government.


it's also long been an anti-statist argument.  It just depends on how one resolves the problem.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Got any examples?
> 
> Face it.  James Madison was the smartest, most brilliant, and most learned Founding Father.  He is the Architect of the American Republic, and the greatest defender of LIBERTY that man has ever known.
> 
> Do what you want to tear down our liberties.


I prefer Jefferson.

----------

