It's already past time to panic

[shagdrum]

Shag - perhaps we should move this to a different post - where we could discuss how beginning in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev made significant changes in the economy and the party leadership. His policy of glasnost freed public access to information after decades of heavy government censorship, which allowed the soviet people to really see what they were missing. The people's access to information, and the beginning of the rise of capitalism within the soviet block countries both played huge parts in the fall of the soviet union.

I would love to, if I thought you would discuss things honestly and in good faith...

BTW: you still have a question to answer in that other thread...

 

[fossten]

Foss - the only 'quotes' you have are a quip from Henry, Washington's quote and a quote from Madison in the Federalist paper #43, these are the only 'backings' that I have been able to find in your various posts.

Moving the goalposts...

I said the the government was designed to grow, not that states rights were designed to erode, got that quote from me?

A distinction without a difference. Really, fox, you're boring me. Do you type just to see your words in black and white?

Foss - so - you actually BELIEVE that somehow the founding fathers really wanted a nationalist form of government - but knew they had to appease state rights for many decades (and long after their deaths) before their evil plan could come to fruition.

That is classic conspiracy theory in action.

So since you are unable to move me off my point or make headway against my evidence, you resort to labeling.

Classic Alinsky in action.

About the supreme court - you stated…

The people have no way to put any pressure on the court.
So, I guess I would ask for clarification on that. Wouldn't the effect of the people being allowed to pressure the court is that the people would have control of the court?

How can the SCOTUS balance the power of the Exec and the Leg if it is part of the same team? Really, fox. You're smarter than this. Are you oblivious to my analogies on this subject, or are you trying to Alinsky me again?

The link to Rivera's website was first posted on #15... Have you read his stuff - it is oddly similar.

So, since I've told you I haven't clicked on it or wasn't even aware of it, are you done whining about it, or do you still want to make an issue of it?

Well, Foss – Adams’ quote is most often used when the subject of secession comes up – for example, when the South decided to secede from the union. It is sort of the basis that almost everyone uses when they discuss how the founding fathers allowed for the states to dissolve the union.

However, I guess in your 'conspiracies' mind set, it has taken on an entirely different meaning, since Adams was so obviously a devious nationalist.

Since you can't argue the merits of my interpretation of his quote, you resort to labeling again? Classic Alinsky. Any more 'arguments' you'd care to bring up?

 

[foxpaws]

Well, I don't know who your talking to.
Your friend has a desire to do that, but that "2nd Principle" has nothing to do with proselytizing what so ever.

Not as a means to convert - but as a means to 'lord' over me... An once again - it may have been the people I talked to. I didn't get the idea that they wanted me to go to their church, they just wanted 'their' God to be present in government. Their God in my life, not in my heart.

I thought he was the best candidate in the race.

I didn't ask if he was the best candidate in the race - do you think he was a good candidate?

And I certainly agree with Buckley's sentiment in his Harvard quote...

 

[fossten]

If you read all of Washington's letter to Jay you will find he is talking about the problems he is having with the states violating a treaty that he fought long and hard to achieve with the British. He is angry at some states for taking it upon themselves to violate this treaty that protected the entire country. You have taken the quote out of context

This is not out of context. The second line of the first paragraph clearly refers to the Confederation and the form of government. The treaty is simply a 'crisis' that he believes should be solved, but when the government goes to the States, they make their own decisions on how to respond. It is the crux of the matter, that he believes the gov should have the power to just TAKE what it wants, WHEN it wants.

Tsk, tsk, you really do yourself a disservice when you skim, fox. I guess I need to enlarge the print so your old eyes can see.

Note the tone, and note that Washington advocates a Congress that doesn't have to ask for money, but can just take it.

"How dare those upstart states tell US what to do with ourselves! Why, it's an outrage that we should have to ASK for anything!"

Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power.

I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extend over the several States. [This is NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!]

To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. [Again, advocating NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!]

Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public without injuring themselves in as equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment must they not mingle frequently with the mass of citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the power before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timely & inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity & future election? We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent, disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same manner forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disastrous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism.

 

[PetesSweets86]

it's not time to panis time my car starts eating babies for fuel!!!!

 

[Calabrio]

I'm not confused, Cal. Don't presume to know things you haven't researched or read. You're literally telling me that I'm wrong without hearing all the evidence. I'm positive that you haven't done all the research on this. Are you not interested?

I don't know what you're recently researched or read, but, while note a constitutional scholar, I have studied the constitution and American political philosophy.

If you've unearthed some incredible information, I suggest you explain it, in detail, and compose a compelling defense of it, rather than being cryptic. Because based solely on what little you've written this evening, it sounds like a rather outrageous and unsubstantiated theory..

I have a question for you - if the Constitution does not grant any powers to the government except those expressly reserved, why does the Constitution also expressly prohibit certain powers? For example, the clause that says, "No title of nobility shall be granted by Congress" must have no meaning at all, or it implies that were it omitted Congress would have the power in question.

It also says Congress can't post ex-post facto laws.
I don't understand what point your making, so I'll wait for an explanation.

No, it makes perfect sense. The Constitution was written with the purpose of replacing the Articles, which is contrary to the expressed reason for the Convention - which was to revise the Articles. Doesn't that bother you at all?

No, because the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

The Articles didn't give the Fed enough power to suit the elites such as Hamilton and Washington. This is evidenced in their writings. But I've already covered this, Cal. Did you not read my entire posts?

Yes, that's how I came to the conclusion that your premise is absurd.
Washington could have been KING had he wanted. History simply doesn't support your theory.

Yes, I am. Are you aware that the 'federalists' were actually nationalists, and that they adopted the term 'federalist' as a sham to fool the people? Yeah, the anti-federalists were the true federalists.

You are essentially right, the federalist were less federalist than the anti-federalists, who were more federalist.

Are you aware of this, Cal:

Of course, I have a copy of ALL of their writings (both federalist and anti-federalist) sitting on my book shelf next to me.

"Let's make this new government really powerful because we will be running it!"

As stated before, perhaps it'd make an interesting Dan Brown book, but history simply doesn't support your theory here. Washington could have been King.

The constitution was the result of political compromise.
The effort was to create a nation with independent states that preserved the most liberty for individuals while still being strong enough to survive.

But most importantly, actions by politicians AFTER the constitution was adopted, actions that bastardized or were inconsistent with the philosophy behind the document, don't define the document but the age and individuals who made the decisions.

The articles of confederation did not work. The powers were too centralized. The result WOULD have been a failed state. The United States would likely not have survived, and it certainly would not have prospered as it did.

 

[foxpaws]

Since you can't argue the merits of my interpretation of his quote, you resort to labeling again? Classic Alinsky. Any more 'arguments' you'd care to bring up?

Since you don't understand Adams' quote, haven't any idea of how it has been used historically to support the idea of allowing states to secede from the Union, your interpretation has no merit -

He's pretty specific about what circumstances he thinks are sufficient for changing government. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

He is specific in how the states can leave the union - do you think it makes sense for states to be able to secede because they don't like the race of the current president? There needs to be specific reasons - the constitution is not only a document that creates a government, and spells out rights, but it is also a document crafted to hold together a group of individual states. The union was important to the founding fathers, and they wrote the constitution to balance the needs of having a country strong enough to stand on the world stage against other countries and having the rights of the states protected.

Basically it says, "if the 'pee-pul' can't get along to the extent that they are physically violent with each other, we'll have another convention and REALLY put the screws to them."

And it very clearly states that if the states are fighting, it will because it is time that a new constitution needs to be drafted - that the old one no longer works, and should be dissolved.

Another interpretation could be - "We've written this Constitution so that it can't be changed unless the whole shebang comes to a crashing halt."

Hardly - Adams was a huge supporter of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments. He knew that there had to be a mechanism in place to add amendments, to change the constitution.

 

[foxpaws]

This is not out of context. The second line of the first paragraph clearly refers to the Confederation and the form of government. The treaty is simply a 'crisis' that he believes should be solved, but when the government goes to the States, they make their own decisions on how to respond. It is the crux of the matter, that he believes the gov should have the power to just TAKE what it wants, WHEN it wants.

Foss - you left off the first part of Washington's letter...

Dear Sir:

I have to thank you very sincerely for your interesting letter of the 27th of June, as well as for the other communications you had the goodness to make at the same time.

I’m sorry to be assured, of what indeed I had little doubt before, that we have been guilty of violating the treaty in some instances. What a misfortune it is the British should have so well grounded a pretext for their palpable infractions? And what a disgraceful part, out of the choice of difficulties before us, are we to act?

Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own.​

This letter does refer to the fact that the states are taking it upon themselves to violate the treaty with the British - Washington is angry and his statements refer to this specific action of the states - he needs them to be in line and obey the letter of the law when it comes to the treaty.

Peace with the British is tentative at best at this point and Washington doesn't want to go back to war because some of the states are acting out own their own, violating the terms of the treaty.

Once again Foss - you don't understand the letter, and you are taking the items out of context.

As Cal said - Washington could have been king. He really didn't even want to be president. Why would a man that wanted less centralized power be for creating a nationalist government - it makes no sense Foss...

 

[fossten]

Foss - you left off the first part of Washington's letter...

Dear Sir:

I have to thank you very sincerely for your interesting letter of the 27th of June, as well as for the other communications you had the goodness to make at the same time.

I’m sorry to be assured, of what indeed I had little doubt before, that we have been guilty of violating the treaty in some instances. What a misfortune it is the British should have so well grounded a pretext for their palpable infractions? And what a disgraceful part, out of the choice of difficulties before us, are we to act?

Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own.​

This letter does refer to the fact that the states are taking it upon themselves to violate the treaty with the British - Washington is angry and his statements refer to this specific action of the states - he needs them to be in line and obey the letter of the law when it comes to the treaty.

Peace with the British is tentative at best at this point and Washington doesn't want to go back to war because some of the states are acting out own their own, violating the terms of the treaty.

Once again Foss - you don't understand the letter, and you are taking the items out of context.

As Cal said - Washington could have been king. He really didn't even want to be president. Why would a man that wanted less centralized power be for creating a nationalist government - it makes no sense Foss...

Wrong, fox. Washington is clearly referring to the behavior by the states as the real problem affecting the treaty. He advocates changing the rules so that the states can be brought into line. I'm sorry you're so obtuse as to fail to understand that. You also blithely ignored the points I made about the letter. Dismissing and demanding greater proof, eh? Moving the goalposts.

So, can you explain the wording that I bolded in the letter? Specifically? Or does the cat have your tongue again?

 

[fossten]

I don't know what you're recently researched or read, but, while note a constitutional scholar, I have studied the constitution and American political philosophy.

If you've unearthed some incredible information, I suggest you explain it, in detail, and compose a compelling defense of it, rather than being cryptic. Because based solely on what you've written this evening, it sounds like you gone over the edge.

The edge of what? Did the Conventioneers meet in secrecy for four months, or did they not? Did they engage in groupthink and high pressure tactics, or did they not? Did they try to ram this document through without public debate, or did they not? You're actually accusing me of something in a knee-jerk fashion when you haven't even considered my evidence.

I've already posted, in this thread, some compelling information. Please feel free to read it, as your comment indicates you have not yet done so. When you're ready to respond to the evidence I've already posted, then we can continue. But you're not going to get away with simply taking potshots from the cheap seats. If you want to discuss this rationally, fine. But name calling won't advance the discussion and I think you know that.

It also says Congress can't post ex-post facto laws.
I don't understand what point your making, so I'll wait for an explanation.

The point I'm making is that the Constitution was written with ambiguous language in order to make it easy to grow the size of the National government.

No, because the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

Again, why do you make this assertion, and what is it based on? In what ways did it not work? In whose opinion?

Yes, that's how I came to the conclusion that your premise is absurd.
Washington could have been KING had he wanted. History simply doesn't support your theory.

Okay, that's absurd. So now you're resorting to mockery?

You are essentially right, the federalist were less federalist than the anti-federalists, who were more federalist.

Of course, I have a copy of ALL of their writings (both federalist and anti-federalist) sitting on my book shelf next to me.

Then you should be able to confirm that the quotes I've posted from them are correct.

The constitution was the result of political compromise.

Ah! So you begin to see the light. Political compromise should always be regarded with suspicion, Cal. I thought you knew better than that. Let me ask you this: Does it concern you that the 'purpose' of the Convention was to revise the articles, and yet Madison's own writings confirm that the real intent was to throw them out, and with a lesser vote requirement as well?

The effort was to create a nation with independent states that preserved the most liberty for individuals while still being strong enough to survive.

That was the effort of the Articles. The effort of the Constitution was to give the Fed more power to exert over the states. I've already backed this up with evidence. Can you back up your assertion with anything more than a high school text?

But most importantly, actions by politicians AFTER the constitution was adopted, actions that bastardized or were inconsistent with the philosophy behind the document, don't define the document but the age and individuals who made the decisions.

What about actions by politicians BEFORE and DURING the ratification process? Do they define the document, or are those to be ignored as well? Think carefully before you answer.

The articles of confederation did not work. The powers were too centralized. The result WOULD have been a failed state. The United States would likely not have survived, and it certainly would not have prospered as it did.

Completely backwards. In fact, the Articles didn't give the central government enough power. The Articles created a Congress that depended on the goodwill of the states. Because of this, the states often ignored the Congress. That didn't sit well with the elites.

As far as your contention that the Articles didn't work - that's not true either. The Articles successfully brought the War to a conclusion, negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which gave the USA de jure status as a nation), established an enduring system for the development of western lands, and and refined the practices of interstate cooperation that gave Americans further practical experience in handling national problems.

Have you heard of Shay's rebellion? That was the result of a confiscatory tax increase by Massachusetts in order to pay off its war debt. Massachusetts farmers had their cattle and land seized and were thrown into jails. After the rebellion was suppressed, the elections changed things. John Hancock won the Governorship and 3/4 of the House members were replaced. Taxes were lowered.

Other states followed suit. This caused concern among the rich and elites, of course. They didn't like the idea of states calling their own shots, and they didn't like the idea that this country could be governed by the 'populace.' Thus, the idea of a stronger central government gained a foothold.

 

[fossten]

Since you don't understand Adams' quote, haven't any idea of how it has been used historically to support the idea of allowing states to secede from the Union, your interpretation has no merit -

Um, I'm the only one who has submitted an interpretation. Tsk, tsk, fox, your slip is showing.

He is specific in how the states can leave the union - do you think it makes sense for states to be able to secede because they don't like the race of the current president? There needs to be specific reasons - the constitution is not only a document that creates a government, and spells out rights, but it is also a document crafted to hold together a group of individual states. The union was important to the founding fathers, and they wrote the constitution to balance the needs of having a country strong enough to stand on the world stage against other countries and having the rights of the states protected.

Yes, he's VERY specific, isn't he? How convenient. But your red herring about race completely undercuts your credibility. There are many other possibilities which you're not considering.

And it very clearly states that if the states are fighting, it will because it is time that a new constitution needs to be drafted - that the old one no longer works, and should be dissolved.

But not until then, right? Isn't it interesting that he didn't feel the same way about the Articles? Or did I miss something and were we having a Civil War in 1787?

Hardly - Adams was a huge supporter of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments. He knew that there had to be a mechanism in place to add amendments, to change the constitution.

Uh, no, you're wrong, fox. You FAILED to read and answer my quiz question. Scroll up and answer it.

 

[fossten]

As Cal said - Washington could have been king. He really didn't even want to be president. Why would a man that wanted less centralized power be for creating a nationalist government - it makes no sense Foss...

Moving the goalposts and appeal to ridicule...

Washington was elected President for life. Not a lot of difference there.

FAIL.

 

[foxpaws]

Wrong, fox. Washington is clearly referring to the behavior by the states as the real problem affecting the treaty. He advocates changing the rules so that the states can be brought into line. I'm sorry you're so obtuse as to fail to understand that. You also blithely ignored the points I made about the letter. Dismissing and demanding greater proof, eh? Moving the goalposts.

So, can you explain the wording that I bolded in the letter? Specifically? Or does the cat have your tongue again?

And Foss - you are wrong - this letter from Washington to Jay was a very specific reply to Jay's previous letter worrying about why the states were being so pigheaded and violating the terms of the treaty with the British. He is only concerned with how the states are acting in regards to a outside threat - a military threat. He doesn't want their actions to mess things up. It isn't about the state's pushing their individual rights on domestic issues - only on this particular national security issue.

Sorry Foss, I know you are trying to find some logical backing to your illogical conspiracy theory that the founding fathers were looking to create a nationalistic form of government. You need to be able to separate where they were dealing with an outside threat, and needed to maintain a strong union (which is what Washington's letter to Jay is about), and where they were dealing with domestic, or internal issues. Yes, they wanted to preserve and hold together a strong union, and made it difficult for states to go against the federal government when they dealt with threats to the US. They knew that the states divided would fail if they had to go against the British again (which did happen, and because we had a strong union of states, we prevailed).

United we stand Foss - pretty basic.

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, he's VERY specific, isn't he? How convenient. But your red herring about race completely undercuts your credibility. There are many other possibilities which you're not considering.

There are many, many possibilities, I can't list them all... I chose one that would be applicable in today's America. Another would be when Kennedy was elected, states with strong anti-Catholic sentiments wouldn't be allowed to break away from the union because of Kennedy's religious preference. I can't list every example that would be against Adams' ideas.

But not until then, right? Isn't it interesting that he didn't feel the same way about the Articles? Or did I miss something and were we having a Civil War in 1787?

Foss - I can't make heads or tails of this particular question... why are you bringing the Articles into this now - this quote from Adams was from 50 years after the constitution was ratified, Adams wasn't concerned at this point about the Articles...

Uh, no, you're wrong, fox. You FAILED to read and answer my quiz question. Scroll up and answer it.

This was your question..

Another interpretation could be - "We've written this Constitution so that it can't be changed unless the whole shebang comes to a crashing halt."​

This was my answer -

Hardly - Adams was a huge supporter of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments. He knew that there had to be a mechanism in place to add amendments, to change the constitution.​

I did answer it - The founding fathers wrote the constitution with the ability to change it if the states, in a 3/4 majority, felt it needed to be changed. Adams and Jefferson in particular felt that there needed to be a way to change the constitution by the states.

Sorry Foss - you might not like the answer that Adam's allowed for change in the constitution, but he did. I know that allowing for historical context throws your conspiracy theory out the window...

 

[fossten]

And Foss - you are wrong - this letter from Washington to Jay was a very specific reply to Jay's previous letter worrying about why the states were being so pigheaded and violating the terms of the treaty with the British. He is only concerned with how the states are acting in regards to a outside threat - a military threat. He doesn't want their actions to mess things up. It isn't about the state's pushing their individual rights on domestic issues - only on this particular national security issue.

Sorry Foss, I know you are trying to find some logical backing to your illogical conspiracy theory that the founding fathers were looking to create a nationalistic form of government. You need to be able to separate where they were dealing with an outside threat, and needed to maintain a strong union (which is what Washington's letter to Jay is about), and where they were dealing with domestic, or internal issues. Yes, they wanted to preserve and hold together a strong union, and made it difficult for states to go against the federal government when they dealt with threats to the US. They knew that the states divided would fail if they had to go against the British again (which did happen, and because we had a strong union of states, we prevailed).

United we stand Foss - pretty basic.

You mean how the states are refusing to give money to Congress? Yeah, that's my point. Washington wanted a way to coerce money from the States. Thanks for making my point.

Oh, and a few other flaws in your argument: Appeal to ridicule, appeal to tradition, moving the goalposts, red herring, and a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the disputed text. That letter was about money.

I guess we just disagree on this, but I'm not the one using all the flawed arguments.

Big fail, fox.

Next.

 

[foxpaws]

You mean how the states are refusing to give money to Congress? Yeah, that's my point. Washington wanted a way to coerce money from the States. Thanks for making my point.

Oh, and a few other flaws in your argument: Appeal to ridicule, appeal to tradition, moving the goalposts, red herring, and a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the disputed text. That letter was about money.

Big fail, fox.

Next.

Foss - I know you can't see the forest for the trees, but you need to step back for a moment -

Now this letter is about 'money'. We have pretty much run the gambit here of classic conspiracy theory. If I disprove one thing (that Washington was promoting a nationalistic form of government in this letter) you find something else to grab onto. There will be no end to this - it is how conspiracy theories work. If we argue this on the idea that the letter was about money, and I show that it isn't, (which it wasn't) you will find yet another 'truth' to bring forth.

 

[fossten]

Foss - I know you can't see the forest for the trees, but you need to step back for a moment -

Now this letter is about 'money'. We have pretty much run the gambit here of classic conspiracy theory. If I disprove one thing (that Washington was promoting a nationalistic form of government in this letter) you find something else to grab onto. There will be no end to this - it is how conspiracy theories work. If we argue this on the idea that the letter was about money, and I show that it isn't, (which it wasn't) you will find yet another 'truth' to bring forth.

Uh...you didn't DISPROVE anything. Nice try, but I emphasized the parts of the letter where Washington advocated Nationalistic government. You IGNORED that part. You still haven't responded to it, because it's there in black and white, and you can't disprove it.

The letter was always about money. Coercing money from the States. What else would Congress want from the States? I've never wavered from that point, nor have you been able to move me off it.

You also ignore how many times I point out your pathetic, flawed arguments.

More red herring.

FAIL.

You're still trying to 'freeze and isolate' this conspiracy tag. Alinsky, of course.

I have a question for you...

Are you able to discuss ANYTHING without ridiculing or ad hominem?

 

[foxpaws]

Uh...you didn't DISPROVE anything. Nice try, but I emphasized the parts of the letter where Washington advocated Nationalistic government. You IGNORED that part. You still haven't responded to it, because it's there in black and white, and you can't disprove it.

The letter was always about money. Coercing money from the States. What else would Congress want from the States? I've never wavered from that point, nor have you been able to move me off it.

You also ignore how many times I point out your pathetic, flawed arguments.

More red herring.

FAIL.

You're still trying to 'freeze and isolate' this conspiracy tag. Alinsky, of course.

I have a question for you...

Are you able to discuss ANYTHING without ridiculing or ad hominem?

Foss-the items that you bolded are in regard to Washington wanting to bring the states in line regarding the treaty with the British - it is what the entire letter is about. It is not about domestic policy, it is about national security - an issue where you have to have all the states in line otherwise the union will be invaded, and fail. That was Washington's biggest worry at the time. And it is not about money-where you get that I haven't a clue... are you talking about the word 'requisition'? It doesn't refer to funds - but is used as 'request', "Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the Land." It means 'Requests are being ignored'. In this letter's case - the specific request that the states start to honor the treaty with the British, and stop violating it...

I know I will never be able to move you off any point regarding this Foss - you can't change a conspiracy theorist - it is useless to even attempt it. I try to show people how your 'proofs' are false - I know I can't show you.

I was hoping that at some point you would see this as a conspiracy theory - that you would see how irrational it is. But, you won't - so, remain in your bunker (although it is too bad that you obviously get internet service down there), or move to Estonia... America as we know it is doomed... /s

 

[fossten]

Foss-the items that you bolded are in regard to Washington wanting to bring the states in line regarding the treaty with the British - it is what the entire letter is about. It is not about domestic policy, it is about national security - an issue where you have to have all the states in line otherwise the union will be invaded, and fail. That was Washington's biggest worry at the time. And it is not about money-where you get that I haven't a clue... are you talking about the word 'requisition'? It doesn't refer to funds - but is used as 'request', "Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the Land." It means 'Requests are being ignored'. In this letter's case - the specific request that the states start to honor the treaty with the British, and stop violating it...

I know I will never be able to move you off any point regarding this Foss - you can't change a conspiracy theorist - it is useless to even attempt it. I try to show people how your 'proofs' are false - I know I can't show you.

I was hoping that at some point you would see this as a conspiracy theory - that you would see how irrational it is. But, you won't - so, remain in your bunker (although it is too bad that you obviously get internet service down there), or move to Estonia... America as we know it is doomed... /s

Requisition of an intangible honoring of the treaty? LOL - Really, fox. You're reaching - nowhere in the letter does it say what you claim it says. Clearly Washington was speaking generally when referring to the states.

I can tell that you're not interested in having a discussion, only in ridiculing. But that's okay, foxpaws, I can move on without you.

 

[Calabrio]

The edge of what? Did the Conventioneers meet in secrecy for four months, or did they not? Did they engage in groupthink and high pressure tactics, or did they not? ]Did they try to ram this document through without public debate, or did they not? You're actually accusing me of something in a knee-jerk fashion when you haven't even considered my evidence.

You ask this, but you're well aware of the poorly labeled federalist and anti-federalist. You know that these public arguments were published and debated over the course of TWO YEARS.

Have I considered your evidence? Frankly, I'm not certain I even fully understand what your "theory" is. That the constitution was designed the intention of creating a strong national government? That the Articles of Confederation were working fine and the Constitutional Convention was nothing more than a greedy power grab by a few elites like George Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison? And Thomas Jefferson sat idly by during this process and then served in this, as you seem to be arguing, "hijacked" government in the executive branch in roles ranging from Secretary of State to Vice-President to President?


That's just absurd.

I've already posted, in this thread, some compelling information.

Compelling information isn't proof. It's not even an argument.
It's just compelling information. And without the proper understanding of the context and related history, it's extremely easy to make an incorrect conclusion based upon "compelling information."

I'm not calling you a 9/11 Truther here, but I'll use them as an example. They have an abundance of "compelling evidence." That is, until you know better. Every good conspiracy is based on "compelling evidence." It's the bits that are missing, the might not be so compelling that provide the complete picture though.

Conclussions based on "compelling evidence" usually, ultimately end like this, "Oh... I didn't know that part. That sort of changes everything. Never mind"

Again, why do you make this assertion, and what is it based on? In what ways did it not work? In whose opinion?

Do you really need to be taught this? I presumed you'd know this history already BEFORE advancing rather ambitious, creative, theories in public.

You ask in who's opinion were the Articles of Confederation failing? Well, lets start with the opinions of all of those people who sought to revise and ultimately replace the Articles of Confederation.

Okay, that's absurd. So now you're resorting to mockery?

You are unaware that following the Revolution, there were prominent people who not only supported the idea of instituting a King, but also of handing that title to Washington?

Washington voluntarily turned over his power TWICE in his life. After the revolutionary war, and again when he left the Presidency after his second term. This is inconsistent with your theory that these men were motivated by grabbing power for themselves.

Then you should be able to confirm that the quotes I've posted from them are correct.

And you know full well that isolating individual sentences from a collection of writings that are several hundred pages long can easily lead to a distorted understanding of what is being said, and it can be used to support a false conclusion.

Ah! So you begin to see the light. Political compromise should always be regarded with suspicion, Cal. I thought you knew better than that.

That's paranoid. It's through debate and thoughtful consideration that you frequently arrive at the best outcome. It avoids that "group think" that you referenced earlier.

Let me ask you this: Does it concern you that the 'purpose' of the Convention was to revise the articles, and yet Madison's own writings confirm that the real intent was to throw them out, and with a lesser vote requirement as well?

Does it "concern me."
No. I know what the ultimate outcome was.

That was the effort of the Articles.

Unfortunately, it was deemed ineffective.

The effort of the Constitution was to give the Fed more power to exert over the states.

In an effort to find a system of government that create a nation with independent states that preserved the most liberty for individuals while still being strong enough to survive. The Articles of Confederation failed to do this.

What about actions by politicians BEFORE and DURING the ratification process? Do they define the document, or are those to be ignored as well? Think carefully before you answer.

The actions of an individual independent from the document have little to do with the worth of the document itself. My point was, those who bastardize or misrepresent a document don't define the document. If an activist judge recklessly misinterprets or ignores the constitution when making a decision, that doesn't mean that constitution is flawed, just that an individual as abused it.

Whether you don't like the procedural process used is a separate issue that doesn't necessarily define the outcome of the event.

Completely backwards. In fact, the Articles didn't give the central government enough power. The Articles created a Congress that depended on the goodwill of the states. Because of this, the states often ignored the Congress. That didn't sit well with the elites.

This wasn't an "elite" issue, it had to do with the stability and ability of the nation to survive in a very dangerous world.

I really don't feel like having to paraphrase the federalist papers to you. Just go read them.

As far as your contention that the Articles didn't work - that's not true either.

...I disagree. And merely because they functioned, that doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be improved or replaced with an improved system. The Articles were the first effort in the American Experiment. The Constitution was written knowing the short coming of the Articles and applying some of the realities learned.

Have you heard of Shay's rebellion? That was the result of a confiscatory tax increase by Massachusetts in order to pay off its war debt.

Yes I know of Shay's Rebellion, and I knew it was inevitable that you would bring it up here with such little context.

But it's also interesting how you gloss over the war debt part of it

Other states followed suit. This caused concern among the rich and elites, of course. They didn't like the idea of states calling their own shots, and they didn't like the idea that this country could be governed by the 'populace.' Thus, the idea of a stronger central government gained a foothold.

The country was strangling in war debt.
The economy was crashed.
There was concern that there would be wars BETWEEN states.

Many of the purely idealist ideas that were bounced around during the revolution were determined to be less than practical in the real, hostile world.

Is your "theory" that the constitution was written to increase the amount of centralized power relative to the Articles of Confederation?
That would be absolutely true. But it still preserves the rights of the states and limits the power of the federal government.

Is your theory that the constitution was written because the idealistic men who fought for revolution and established this country suddenly got a taste of power and wanted to consolidate it?
That's ridiculous.

And how does your theory about the constitution being about a "coupe de tat" work into this again?

Take a little bit of time, don't respond to anyone, and just write out what it is your trying to say. Retaining the complexity and depth of your theory when it's parsed out one sentence at a time in responses does it a disservice.

It seems like your getting caught up in this concept of philosophical purity.
And I don't think you should worship the constitution, but I think your abandonment of it is troubling.
But more so, if you're headed down that road, likely stimulated by the stress and confusion of current events, I worry about the loonies out there.
Desperate misunderstandings and sketchy history lead to more divisions and chaos. This is made worse and more dangerous because there are plenty of people who seem to foolishly think that violent revolution is glorious and beautiful and not a horror.

 

[fossten]

You ask this, but you're well aware of the poorly labeled federalist and anti-federalist. You know that these public arguments were published and debated over the course of TWO YEARS.

Have I considered your evidence? Frankly, I'm not certain I even fully understand what your "theory" is. That the constitution was designed the intention of creating a strong national government? That the Articles of Confederation were working fine and the Constitutional Convention was nothing more than a greedy power grab by a few elites like George Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison? And Thomas Jefferson sat idly by during this process and then served in this, as you seem to be arguing, "hijacked" government in the executive branch in roles ranging from Secretary of State to Vice-President to President?


That's just absurd.

Appeal to ridicule, Cal. Are you interested in constructing an argument or are you just going to blithely brush away the discussion?

Compelling information isn't proof. It's not even an argument.
It's just compelling information. And without the proper understanding of the context and related history, it's extremely easy to make an incorrect conclusion based upon "compelling information."

It's also extremely easy to cling to long held beliefs when the alternative is too ghastly.

I'm not calling you a 9/11 Truther here, but I'll use them as an example. They have an abundance of "compelling evidence." That is, until you know better. Every good conspiracy is based on "compelling evidence." It's the bits that are missing, the might not be so compelling that provide the complete picture though.

Fine, convince me with an argument of your own. Meanwhile, I'll continue to post more evidence as we go. But your casual broad-brush dismissal doesn't disprove it either.

Conclussions based on "compelling evidence" usually, ultimately end like this, "Oh... I didn't know that part. That sort of changes everything. Never mind"

We'll see. So far I haven't been moved off any point. Of course, nobody's made a real argument other than 'You're a nutbag' or 'that's absurd' either.

Do you really need to be taught this? I presumed you'd know this history already BEFORE advancing rather ambitious, creative, theories in public.

You ask in who's opinion were the Articles of Confederation failing? Well, lets start with the opinions of all of those people who sought to revise and ultimately replace the Articles of Confederation.

I was being rhetorical, Cal. I know the answer.

You are unaware that following the Revolution, there were prominent people who not only supported the idea of instituting a King, but also of handing that title to Washington?

No, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that Washington accepted the position of President For Life.

That's paranoid. It's through debate and thoughtful consideration that you frequently arrive at the best outcome. It avoids that "group think" that you referenced earlier.

Okay. You're name calling now. I'm done. Not giong to get into a flame war again with you. Not going to read the rest of your comments. I'll submit to the groupthink. See ya.

 

[Calabrio]

Appeal to ridicule, Cal. Are you interested in constructing an argument or are you just going to blithely brush away the discussion?

You're missing the point here.
Since you're the one advancing a rather sensational theory, the burden of proof really falls on you.

It's also extremely easy to cling to long held beliefs when the alternative is too ghastly.

Yes it is. That's why when presenting a ghastly alternative, there's the expectation of a coherant argument to support it.

I'll leave it at that and wait for you to elaborate and more clearly explain this alternative history, without the background noise.

 

[foxpaws]

You're missing the point here.
Since you're the one advancing a rather sensational theory, the burden of proof really falls on you.


Yes it is. That's why when presenting a ghastly alternative, there's the expectation of a coherant argument to support it.

I'll leave it at that and wait for you to elaborate and more clearly explain this alternative history, without the background noise.

Foss - I too will back down - I would really like to see this idea of yours more succinctly spelled out. No noise, no breaking in, no arguing minutia, as we are now. I would love to see your overall concept.

 

[fossten]

Okay. I'll piece it together over this weekend and present an essay.