Challenge: The United States as it Was

Your challenge, is to have America remain decentralized, with a government structure much like it was in the first century after the Constitution took effect. By that I mean, something where the federal government is weak, with limited power, while the states retain a lot of power.

The only restriction on the POD, is that it must be after the ratification of the Constitution.

Thank you for giving a reason for New England to secede and become its own country. ;):cool:
 
Canada's government is very decentralized on paper,

Actually, if you read the original BNA Act (not the heavily amended current version) the original Confederation was essentially a quasi-federal unitary state, with the Queen (through the GG), and the Federal government in general through the POGG powers, wielding a huge amount of influence. It was de jure centralized, but over time has become de facto very decentralized - not as decentralized as post-Franco Spain, but close enough.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Actually, if you read the original BNA Act (not the heavily amended current version) the original Confederation was essentially a quasi-federal unitary state, with the Queen (through the GG), and the Federal government in general through the POGG powers, wielding a huge amount of influence. It was de jure centralized, but over time has become de facto very decentralized - not as decentralized as post-Franco Spain, but close enough.

I'm talking about the modern constitution of Canada, not the BNAA... Also influence is not necessarily power, there'S a difference between potestas and auctoritas.
 
I'm talking about the modern constitution of Canada, not the BNAA... Also influence is not necessarily power, there'S a difference between potestas and auctoritas.

The original Constitution of Canada pre-1982 - essentially the original BNA Act, which provided the foundation for Canada's modern Constitution - was centralized on paper but decentralized in practice (and yes, I AM aware of the pouvoir/authorité distinction). The modern Constitution of Canada does include the BNA Act, eh?
 
That's because Parliament isn't just another law making authority, it's the sovereign law making authority. In the US, at least in theory, the sovereign law-making authority is the set of traditions and customs of We the People embody in our constitutions. Congress and lesser legislatures are there to act on the will We the People as written into the relevant constitution and have a duty to do so. That they don't is because of corruption of the republic and flaws in its institutional design.

Given that the U.S had already broken with Great Britain, they had already rejected a significant part of tradition. The courts also at times contradicted the clear will of the people- despite the First Amendment, defamation remained legally existant in the common law.

OK, we're speaking on two different planes here. The meaning I am using certain words to convey is different from the meaning you receive them with. You're mistaking the government for the sovereign.

When I say sovereignty, I'm using the precise, technical meaning of the word contemporaries from the time would understand. A sovereign is merely any entity with full power and authority over itself and its recognized jurisdiction. You can recognize the difference between a sovereign and non-sovereign, for instance, in whether the entity in question holds alloidal title to all real property it owns or not.

When I say government, I merely mean the entity which runs the day to day activities of the state.

The Revolutionary generation fought for what it believed to be the traditional understanding of English law: The king was not an absolute monarch, sovereign in all aspects, but rather a limited sort of monarch, with a duty to respect and protect the rights of his subjects. The republic was initially set up to replace the British monarch as an entity capable of performing this expected duty. It began to fail at this almost immediately, and especially with the adoption of the Constitution (which was, nevertheless, meant to correct the defects of the Articles with respect to performance of the duty in question) and the rise of the public investor class to prominence in the form of Alexander Hamilton and the High Federalists.

The key to this understanding is that, in the US, in theory, sovereignty comes from the consent of the subjects of the sovereign, so the ultimate sovereign entity in the US is not a king or the central government or any state, but rather than people of the United States as a whole.

The corruption of the republic then starts to make sense. The state is a set of institutions created to increase the power of a sovereign; but, as essentially big tools, these institutions can be re-purposed by a new, illegitimate authority to the detriment of the sovereign. Since the American people have been neglectful in their duty to look after the health of the republic, the state has been hijacked by others to the benefit of private interests.

This is why I mentioned the conservative nature of the time to explain why it all failed so quickly. The theory of political economy put forth in support of the revolution was, in ways, too radical for the time period. The people of the time were happy to secure what they thought was slipping as the British Empire moved in with a serious dose of mercantilism and state power. Their rights were safe, they felt, and that was enough. The 'Spirit of 76', as it were, could not revive in the 1780's or 1790's enough to kick the mercantilists at home out of power.

Had the people of the time been liberal enough to widen the franchise (as, for instance, happening in Pennsylvania -- PA being a good example because it shows how NOT all the states of the time had property qualifications keeping the majority of people from voting), the problems would have been a lot less. No violent revolution would have been necessary to kick the bastards out, just votes. But since a violent revolution of some sort seems to have been necessary to gain a widened franchise immediately anyway, we got OTL instead of a better ATL.

I don't dispute most of what you're saying- I would argue, however, given who had the vote in the first place, that "the people" mostly meant white males.
Are you seriously claiming that these people were mindless zombies marching to the orders of 'social forces' and men in power?

You don't understand much about the revolutionary period, and your ignorance is too informed by back-projection of your modern biases.

Local self-rule was the name of the game in colonial America. The colonial and later the state governments could try to be authoritarian and centralizing, but there wasn't much they could actually do to exercise power because the majority of their subject population lived in more or less self-sufficient villages and towns outside the immediate reach of the central state.

The "men in power" (notice the scare quotes here) that people listened to back in the day were priests and local 'big men'.

The plantation and mercantile elite were the exception, not the rule, in colonial america. That's why the revolution happened in the first place. 95% of the population lived out in the hinterland, not in the cities subject to merchants. A good half of the population lived in the North, where slave run plantation agriculture never took hold.

I'm not saying a lot of people didn't fight because wider social forces pulled them in. But where do you think those social forces come from? Nobody decided that the British force coming to Lexington to appropriate arms would be attacked, the word got out and people came on their own.

The decisions that made the British act in the way they did more or less inevitably created the responses they did- and were made by men in power. Additionally, a lot of people would have been highly influenced by what their neighbours thought to join one side or another- thus casting significant doubt on their making the choice individually.

Additionally, archeological evidence suggests there were at least more plantations in the North then you think.
 
elder.wyrm said:
troll2.jpg

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Elder wyrm wrote:
This is an oversimplified view of the time. Many states, yes, had property and race qualifications. Many didn't, however, and these qualifications started disappearing pretty quickly.
A solid majority of states had them. And, if by "pretty quickly" you mean the half century 'til Jackson's election. And, while property requirements were heading down, skin color requirements were heading UP most places.

Historical examples show that you need surprisingly little of both (and no soldiers at all -- many societies have gotten by on militia models of military force, rather than on the existence of a professional standing army) when we're talking the tiny population densities that existed in the early United States.
Name one such example. I'm not sure the native americans we mostly efficiently ethnically cleansed would agree with you about American militia forces being so minor. The Iraqis we left only slightly protected who experienced a spiral of increasing gang violence and ethnic cleansing would also disagree.

Reality is that real people need real protection from crooks, gangs, and warlords.

There WAS a central government, simply not central authority (the government is the institutions, the power of the state, and the authority is the decision maker who wields the power). The Constitution was meant to continue with this structure, but it ended up being a mistake in that it worked even less well than the Confederation had and was almost immediately used by Alexander Hamilton to fully corrupt the national government and establish a central authority where none had existed before.
Yes, of course - EVERYTHING is Hamilton's fault, including communism and me hurt left toe. Since you can't seem to read what I write, let me repeat:
o Having no real central government to the degree you want had already been seen to be a lose in reality and was already a political loser. Hence the Constitution and its easy passage. "

In short, the Evil Hamilton's side ALREADY included, once the Constitution was done, Washington, Madison, Monroe, and most other founders and even most of the American people who could see plenty of signs that central government was needed via their newspapers and Federalist Papers.

How's this any realer than communism? Name one prosperous country that has virtually no army and isn't under another's protection. How about one successful big country without a strong central federal government?
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
Given that the U.S had already broken with Great Britain, they had already rejected a significant part of tradition. The courts also at times contradicted the clear will of the people- despite the First Amendment, defamation remained legally existant in the common law.

At the time the belief was that it was George III and Parliament who had broken with tradition, in that George III had failed in his traditional duty as sovereign to protect the rights of his subjects and instead had allowed Parliament to hijack sovereignty and exercise it as a right. The Revolution was fought in an attempt to return to the traditional duty of the sovereign and reject the right of the sovereign to do as it pleases.

I don't dispute most of what you're saying- I would argue, however, given who had the vote in the first place, that "the people" mostly meant white males.

Needs of the time, as I said. People simply weren't ready for what was happening. Nevertheless, some vital first steps were made in this period. Slavery was abolished in some northern states (Massachusetts being the prime example) explicitly because it conflicted with the principles of '76.

As the electorate and the body politic have broadened, so has the members of We the People who speak the voice of sovereignty in this country.

The decisions that made the British act in the way they did more or less inevitably created the responses they did- and were made by men in power. Additionally, a lot of people would have been highly influenced by what their neighbours thought to join one side or another- thus casting significant doubt on their making the choice individually.

This is sounding dangerously close to historicism and the denial of any individuality at all.

Of course people are influenced by their neighbors and their environment. But that doesn't mean it is not ultimately the individual making the decision to participate using their own conscience.

Additionally, archeological evidence suggests there were at least more plantations in the North then you think.

I'd be interested in hearing about this further.
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
A solid majority of states had them. And, if by "pretty quickly" you mean the half century 'til Jackson's election. And, while property requirements were heading down, skin color requirements were heading UP most places.

Think of things in terms of a progression: Back in England, large land-owners and large bond-holders had the vote. Just about nobody else did. In colonial times, land-owners of lesser means entered the electorate. This was the progress of centuries.

Then, suddenly, in a few decades, the electorate goes from the less than 10% of the population who could claim title to enough land or gold to meet property requirements to closer to half of the population in some states who can meet the requirements of white and male. And, to harp on PA some more, until 1876 the only requirement was 'male citizen'. ;)

Like I said, radical. The institutions necessary to bring about that kind of change were birthed in the Founding period.

Name one such example. I'm not sure the native americans we mostly efficiently ethnically cleansed would agree with you about American militia forces being so minor. The Iraqis we left only slightly protected who experienced a spiral of increasing gang violence and ethnic cleansing would also disagree.

Reality is that real people need real protection from crooks, gangs, and warlords.

Iceland during the middle ages is a good example. At low enough population densities, with enough available resources, human beings are perfectly capable of living with no state at all.

As population density increase, the needs of the population increase as well. Does this mean that, the moment an anarchy no longer works, we need an all embracing state? Of course not, the magnitudes are different depending on the specifics of the population.

And who better to determine those specifics than the population itself?

The challenge, then, is to create an America where the populace itself is in charge, rather than any one faction or interest group. The two primary interest groups at the time of the Revolution were the slave-owners and the debt-holders. That means we need to find a way to deal with both problems. I mentioned several ideas in my initial post and, so far, nobody has bothered to address them. Since they're the relevant portion of my post, I have to wonder why.

Yes, of course - EVERYTHING is Hamilton's fault, including communism and me hurt left toe. Since you can't seem to read what I write, let me repeat:

In short, the Evil Hamilton's side ALREADY included, once the Constitution was done, Washington, Madison, Monroe, and most other founders and even most of the American people who could see plenty of signs that central government was needed via their newspapers and Federalist Papers.

How's this any realer than communism? Name one prosperous country that has virtually no army and isn't under another's protection. How about one successful big country without a strong central federal government?

One of the primary components of constructive debate is honesty. I have been honest throughout this particular discussion. I would ask you also be honest by not trying to misrepresent me or my position, especially not in a sarcastic or mocking manner.

Alexander Hamilton really did have a malignant effect on the early republic. He used his position as Secretary of the Treasury to accomplish political aims. Inadvertently, he proved that the political elite could effect a change in the constitution (emphasis on the lack of upper case C in that word -- I'm speaking of the actual form of the government) of the government for factional ends without reference or support from the wider populace. That precedent is dangerous to the maintenance of a constitutional order and the upholding of the rule of law.

Switzerland does pretty well for itself with a modern variant of the militia system. Not entirely without professional forces, but I never did make the claim that we could transition to a more republican, liberal order immediately. I'm talking, instead, about late 18th century America, where such a transition is a lot easier to make and, indeed, almost happened.
 
At the time the belief was that it was George III and Parliament who had broken with tradition, in that George III had failed in his traditional duty as sovereign to protect the rights of his subjects and instead had allowed Parliament to hijack sovereignty and exercise it as a right. The Revolution was fought in an attempt to return to the traditional duty of the sovereign and reject the right of the sovereign to do as it pleases.

If they had wanted to return to the traditional duty of the sovereign, they would have appointed a new monarch. Also, you haven't countered my point as to the courts and defamation.

Needs of the time, as I said. People simply weren't ready for what was happening. Nevertheless, some vital first steps were made in this period. Slavery was abolished in some northern states (Massachusetts being the prime example) explicitly because it conflicted with the principles of '76.

There is no evidence that any of the Founding Fathers actually wanted the franchise any wider then it actually was.

This is sounding dangerously close to historicism and the denial of any individuality at all.

Of course people are influenced by their neighbors and their environment. But that doesn't mean it is not ultimately the individual making the decision to participate using their own conscience.

I'm not actually a pure historicist, but why should you reject the idea out of hand? You haven't refuted my argument, just made assertions. (I should also point out that there are good scientific arguments against the existence of free will)

I'd be interested in hearing about this further.

http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/ajc030203.htm
 

Stephen

Banned
Power in bearocracy is like mass in a nebula it starts out evenly distributet but then it concentrates into stars and planets. Because the main thing someone does when they get power is use it to acrue more power. Until eventuially things get so dence that it all explodes again.
 
elder.wyrm wrote:
Then, suddenly, in a few decades
I'm STILL not getting how a few decades is "sudden."

Iceland during the middle ages is a good example. At low enough population densities, with enough available resources, human beings are perfectly capable of living with no state at all.
Oh, yeah? The Icelandic All Thing hardly counts as no government; neither did the Norwegian and then Danish Crowns, later.

As population density increase, the needs of the population increase as well. Does this mean that, the moment an anarchy no longer works, we need an all embracing state? Of course not, the magnitudes are different depending on the specifics of the population.
Please name ONE successful anarchy with more than eight people. No - real people need real leaders. And, even the eight-person anarchy will be outperformed by eight people that include a an even OK leader.

That means we need to find a way to deal with both problems. I mentioned several ideas in my initial post and, so far, nobody has bothered to address them.
I TWICE repeated why they'd fail. You can feel free to reread that.

Yes, I have been specially mean to your arguments, because I've feel your libertarianism's decided how things went BEFORE actually checking how they actually WERE - a nono if you want to move things forward instead of backward.

Radicalism is good stuff when it's connected with the real world and moves rights forward, like in the Revolution, or in Lincoln's day when slavery was abolished. But, radicalism unconnected with reality can cause massive suffering. Ask Russians about Communism, or Iraqis and Afghans about neoconism, which led to us to wrongly invade Iraq and leave both countries wrongly unguarded when their armies and police were undergoing transition.
 
Last edited:
Top