PDA

View Full Version : The Treason of the U.S. Constitution



IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 10:19 AM
PART ONE:

The present United States Constitution and the role of the so-called founding fathers of the United States of America are often characterized by Americans as excellent philosophical guides and role models (as applicable) to how our present-day policy-making should proceed. To challenge those notions is as easy as taking a step back into the context of the times in which it was founded and reviewing the facts more fully than the typical American documentary or history textbook would bother to. Here I will endeavor to provide a history lesson long forgotten by this nation.

Following the surrender of the British, America could hardly have been a poorer nation overall. Its trade continued to be dominated by the great European powers (especially Britain) despite the formality of independence. This was the matter of particularly great concern for the wealthy merchants, manufacturers, slave-holders, and financial aristocracy from whence most of the so-called revolutionary fathers came. As for the poor farmers and workers who as Minute Men at Concord had fired the “shot heard ‘round the world” and who left the imprint of their bleeding feet at Valley Forge and Yorktown? They now found themselves hopelessly indebted to the privileged classes of the coast cities. Money could not be printed fast enough to keep up with their needs of making debt payments, particularly given that debts were being issued in unlimited paper money, but collected only in very finite specie (gold, silver). To further characterize the situation, poverty was so high and thus debt collection rates so terrible that McMaster records in his History of the People of the United States, “It was then the fashion of New Hampshire, as indeed it was everywhere, to lock men up in jail the moment they were so unfortunate as to owe their fellows a sixpence or shilling. Had this law been rigorously executed in the autumn of 1785, it is probable that not far from two thirds of the community would have been in the prisons.” McMaster further records of the overall situation that “Civil actions were multiplied to a degree that scarcely seems credible. The lawyers were overwhelmed with cases. The courts could not try half that came before them.” Adding even further to the woes of the impoverished masses, taxation was regressive in nature. The poll tax (declared unconstitutional in this country only in the 1960s) was one of the most common methods of collecting it. This was done only by the states, of course. The central government was very weak at the time. The United States of America was indeed so named as to imply the intention of maintaining a weak central government; a nation composed of many relatively autonomous republics was the idea. Among other things the central government was forbidden to do was collect taxes and raise an army during peacetime. Only state governments could do those things under the Articles of Confederation. The central government could only finance itself by selling off its assets and by issuing the aforementioned worthless paper money, which wasn’t nearly enough to keep it from also becoming itself hopelessly indebted. The people preferred things that way contextually, considering that central government would have only offered the masses more taxation they couldn’t afford, fewer rights, and more enforcement of debt collection. The class composition of the individual governments made the matter quite clear. Election rules (namely mandatory property qualifications at the time ensured that only an affluent minority of the male population was generally allowed to either vote or hold office. The masses themselves, it was reasoned by the rulers, could not be trusted with the levers of government. Not surprisingly, one found that the impoverished and desperate masses, unlike the society’s rulers, were perfectly willing to pay the lower product prices of British businesses rather than support a protective tariff on manufacturing that would have increased prices.

In Massachusetts, the masses were finally successful in electing a government pledged to a program of the debtors (the vast majority), which included low taxes and the issuing of new paper money (such as to provide more resources with which to pay debts), “stay laws” postponing the collection of debts, restrictions on the power of the courts (such as to further limit debt collections). But when the legislature met, the Boston creditors pressured its members into breaking their pledges. The farmers responded by starting to defy and intimidate the courts. A more radical, collectivist program now began to take shape among them. General Knox, then Secretary of War, who was sent by the Continental Congress to investigate the situation, reported that, and I quote: “Their creed is that the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscation of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all.” To this the courts responded by attempting to force the collection of debts from the impoverished, at which point the desperate debtors rallied to arms under the leadership of Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays and captured some of the smaller cities. Though there was no money in the Massachusetts treasury with which to carry out the basic functions of government, nonetheless plenty was advanced by the wealthy bankers and merchants of Boston for the state to call out the militia and gun down these starving veterans of the revolution.

A similar situation developed in Rhode Island, with the important difference that in this case the debtors were able to seize the legislature and force it to do their will. The result was something very like civil war, with the debtors trying to force the creditors to accept the paper money that had been issued (which they had plenty of), rather than specie (which they had little, if any, of) as payment for their debts. G.R. Minot, in his History of the Insurrection in Massachusetts in 1786, describes more of what the Rhode Islanders did:


A convention of all the towns in Providence county met at Smithfield to consult upon further measures of hostility toward the merchants, whom they accused of exporting specie, and thus causing the distress of the State. A plan of ‘State trade’ was proposed, to be submitted to the General Assembly, and the Governor was requested to call a special session for that purpose. The plan was for the State to provide vessels and import goods on its own account, under the direction of a committee of the legislature; that produce, lumber, and labor, as well as money, should be received in payment of taxes, and thus furnish cargoes in return for which specie and goods could be obtained. Interest certificates were no longer to be received in payment of duties, but the private importers were to be compelled to pay them in money. The act making notes of hand negotiable was to be repealed, and the statute of limitations shortened to two years.

In Social Forces in American History, A.M. Simons sums up the response of the wealthy and powerful to all these developments in the following way:


There are few things more striking than [the] complete change of front by the budding capitalists of Revolutionary times in obedience to material class interests. In 1776 they were all for paper money, restriction of the power of the courts, “natural rights”, and the whole string of democratic principles. By 1786 they had rejected all these principles and were defending most of the positions of the English government of King George, while the prerevolutionary principles were left for debt-ridden farmers and workingmen. It is at least interesting to learn that the ruling class had even the same demagogues to secure popular support, and that Sam Adams was now an ardent defender of the creditor class.

It was under these conditions that the aforementioned wealthy few, feeling greatly threatened by the popular rebellions in now two states, conspired to overthrow the United States government themselves and forge a replacement more capable of defending their interests. If there was one thing that was clear by this point, it was that, whether from above or from below, the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress were going to be replaced. The only question now was from which direction and toward which corresponding ends.

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 10:21 AM
PART TWO:

The first step toward the from-above overthrow of the central government was an invitation from George Washington to commissioners appointed by Maryland and Virginia to meet him at his home in order to consider methods of regulating commerce in Chesapeake Bay. These men arranged a commercial convention in Annapolis held on September 11, 1786. Being that he was probably the most impartial observer of the proceedings, I will highlight the account of the French minister Otto to his chief Count Vergennes:


Although there are no nobles in America, there is a class of men, denominated gentlemen, who, by reason of their wealth, their talents, their education, their families, or the offices they hold, aspire to a preeminence which the people refuse to grant them; and although many of these men have betrayed the interests of their order to gain popularity, there reigns among them a connection so much the more intimate as they almost all of them dread the efforts of the people to despoil them of their possessions, and, moreover, they are creditors, and therefore interested in strengthening the government and watching over the execution of the laws. …By proposing a new organization of the general government all minds would have been revolted; circumstances ruinous to the commerce of America have happily arisen to furnish the reformers with a pretext for introducing innovations.

He continues:



The authors of this proposition (the Annapolis convention) had no hope nor even desire to see the success of this assembly of commissioners which was only intended to prepare a question more important than that of commerce. The measures were so well taken that at the end of September no more than five states were represented in Annapolis, and the commissioners from the northern states tarried several days at New York in order to retard their arrival. The states which assembled after having waited nearly three weeks separated under the pretext of business, and to justify this dissolution they addressed to the different legislatures and to Congress a report.

Indeed, none other than James Madison, the famed principal architect of the constitution that was ultimately to arise from this whole process, plainly admitted in papers discovered after his death that the whole Annapolis affair was a conspiracy and that delegates deliberately remained away in order to undermine the action for which the convention was ostensibly called. It was then possible to go to the Continental Congress with the plea for a larger body to be convened.

The following February, the Continental Congress passed a resolution calling for a new and broader convention of state delegates be held in Philadelphia in May, and I quote, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.” No sooner had that body assembled than it proceeded to break this one link that gave it legal sanction. It completely disregarded the conditions of its existence as fixed by Congress and instead moved to devise an entirely new government, following which it never bothered to report back to the Congress to which it was supposed to be subordinate. To ensure the secrecy of their course, note-taking was forbidden. It is fortunate for our edification then that the principal architect of the new constitution drafted at this Philadelphia convention, James Madison, violated this rule by taking copious notes, which were published half a century later. The attitude and class composition of the convention is shown by an expression used by Ellsworth of Connecticut in opposing any action restricting slavery: “Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless.” Of 65 delegates elected, only 55 were ever present, and but 39 signed the final document, which greatly strengthened the powers of the central government, allowing it now to, among other things, create a national army to defend against any future popular revolt and a robust federal court system by which to collect debts. It also invented a second legislative chamber, the Senate, which was to be elected not by the small and generally affluent portion of the population that was allowed to vote, but by the lower chamber of the Congress, the House of Representatives, such as to further distance the population from the decision-making processes of the government. The presidency, previously little more than a formality in American politics, was also greatly elevated in stature and power. There was no bill of rights included in the said constitution to protect the people from abuse of power. In addition to these general benefits for the wealthy and powerful, there were also some more direct commercial benefits for the privileged few who drafted the said constitution, including the central government’s new power to authorize nationwide and international commercial treaties (which benefited both the merchants of the northern states and the slave plantation owners of the southern states; the former because it provided more opportunities and the latter because English merchants were previously running their trading) and to levy protective tariffs in defense of domestic manufacturers. It also gave significant political advantages to slave-holders by way of the famous three-fifths compromise whereby the owners of slaves would get three-fifths of an additional vote, in addition to their own, for each slave they possessed. (i.e. If hypothetically you owned 101 slaves, for example, your vote would be counted 60 times rather than once like that of everyone else permitted to vote.) Such were the new features introduced.

After much pushing and prodding and case-making, most forcefully by financial aristocrat Alexander Hamilton, the representatives of the small and generally affluent portion of the population that was allowed to vote ratified the new constitution in most states. (To put this matter in perspective, out of a population of 3 million at the time, not more than 120,000 (4% of the population, at most) were entitled to vote. And naturally those disenfranchised were the least likely to support the new constitution, as, unlike the mostly highly propertied persons with the vote, they had a material disincentive to do so.) However, that was not enough to ratify a new constitution according to the standards set by the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress had set a standard requiring that ALL states ratify a new constitution before it could take effect. Instead, the Philadelphia convention arbitrarily fabricated a new standard whereby their new constitution would go into effect, in spite of the law, once ratified by but 11 states of the 13. North Carolina waited to join the new Union until the new system was in effect and its consequences seen. Rhode Island, uniquely still under popular control to a substantial degree (as discussed earlier), refused to join initially and capitulated only under threat of invasion by the new U.S. government in 1790. And even of those rather non-representative state governments that did ratify the new constitution, even they often did so only on the condition that a bill of rights later be drafted. So just how popular was the new constitution, even with the promise of a bill of rights, at the time of its enactment? In The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, Orin G. Libby makes it clear that fully two-thirds of the U.S. population opposed it and remained opposed to it long after it became law.

(It is worth adding here that the bill of rights that was eventually added to the new U.S. Constitution in 1791 did not at the time protect citizens against the dictates of their individual state governments, but rather only limited the powers of the federal government. So, in other words, state governments were still perfectly free to silence the press or to impose a local theocracy or what have you. The official interpretation of the said bill of rights only became generalized gradually following the American Civil War generations later. The bill of rights, in other words, in no way afforded the populace with legal protections that it hadn’t previously enjoyed. It was in no way an expansion of democratic rights until after the Civil War, when the courts changed their official interpretation of it.)

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 10:22 AM
CONCLUSION:

None of this is to say that the American Revolution was a bad thing (it wasn’t!), that it didn’t play a progressive role in the history of world politics (it did!), or that leaders were not required for it to succeed (they were!). I am simply saying that the leaders of the American Revolution, whom we Americans today call the founding fathers of our nation, were not by any means consistently aligned with the general public in their interests or in the policies they advanced. They were fallible human beings and pampered aristocrats whose interests beyond national independence were generally quite a distance from those of the yeoman farmers that composed more than 80% of the new nation’s population and they acted accordingly. Their replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the current U.S. Constitution was an act of treason in that it betrayed most of the core democratic principles that so many had fought the American Revolution for on the grounds that these principles were not compatible with the privileges and coordination that the wealthier classes required to forge the country into an economic powerhouse. To that end, they drafted a document (the current U.S. Constitution) that put greater distance between the masses and the levers of power, stepped up the enforcement of their exploitation, gave the central executive qualitatively greater power, etc. All of this was highly unpopular for a long time, even many years after the Constitution had been “ratified”. Gradually, of course, as we know, Americans rejected the undemocratic qualities of their constitution generally, forging movements that led to the abolition of financial qualifications for voting and holding office, to women’s suffrage, to the freeing of slaves generally and the enfranchising of the thereby freedmen, to the direct popular election of Senators, to the nationwide application of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, to the discovery of new rights enshrined in the Constitution (such as the right to privacy), and to the establishment of initiative and recall voting rights at the state and local levels of governance generally, among other things. All of these changes were fortunate and generally advanced first and foremost by ordinary working people. None of them were the “intent of the founders”. Thank goodness we today live in a more democratic and just society than the one they envisioned…and thank goodness we have liberalized our interpretation of our “founding document” to accommodate such positive changes!

Peter1469
09-02-2012, 10:29 AM
An interesting thread.


They were fallible human beings and pampered aristocrats whose interests beyond national independence were generally quite a distance from those of the yeoman farmers that composed more than 80% of the new nation’s population and they acted accordingly. Their replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the current U.S. Constitution was an act of treason in that it betrayed most of the core democratic principles that so many had fought the American Revolution for on the grounds that these principles were not compatible with the privileges and coordination that the wealthier classes required to forge the country into an economic powerhouse.

The Constitution was not an act of treason. It was a gift to the world. It created a federalist system where the national government only had limited and enumerated powers, keeping governance as local as possible. The treason occurred later as the federal government usurped the powers of states and local governments.

And forging the country into an economic powerhouse is good for all citizens.

Agravan
09-02-2012, 10:37 AM
History from a communist perspective. What a shocker that hate the "rich old white men" that founded the country and committed "treason" against the "workers".
Marxist claptrap.

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 10:42 AM
Is there something wrong with Marxists (such as yours truly) commenting from a Marxist perspective?

Chris
09-02-2012, 10:44 AM
Polly, you announce as topic "United States Constitution and the role of the so-called founding fathers of the United States of America are often characterized by Americans as excellent philosophical guides and role models" but after three posts say very little at all about that. Where you do, you get it terribly wrong except it was a later addition.


There was no bill of rights included in the said constitution to protect the people from abuse of power.

The body of the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to specific enumerated powers.


And even of those rather non-representative state governments that did ratify the new constitution, even they often did so only on the condition that a bill of rights later be drafted.

Thus, while some thought it unnecessary and even dangerous, the BOR was intended from the start.


It is worth adding here that the bill of rights that was eventually added to the new U.S. Constitution in 1791 did not at the time protect citizens against the dictates of their individual state governments, but rather only limited the powers of the federal government.

Correct, the Constitution framed only the federal government, that was the intent, it was a positive, not a negative. The states wanted as little interference in their affairs as possible.


The official interpretation of the said bill of rights only became generalized gradually following the American Civil War generations later.

Apparently you have not read Madison's notes on the debates over the BOR. The original intent was set back then.


The bill of rights, in other words, in no way afforded the populace with legal protections that it hadn’t previously enjoyed.

Oh? Read the Declaration and its list of grievances.


It was in no way an expansion of democratic rights...

Where'd you get the idea the Constitution, the BOR grants or expands rights?

Agravan
09-02-2012, 11:00 AM
Is there something wrong with Marxists (such as yours truly) commenting from a Marxist perspective?
Not at all. Your fantasies and alternate histories are amusing. Gives an interesting perspective on the dementia that infects hard core leftists.

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 11:09 AM
At least I substantiate my "fantasies" and "dementia" rather than just asserting that my critics are wrong over and over again.

Agravan
09-02-2012, 11:19 AM
At least I substantiate my "fantasies" and "dementia" rather than just asserting that my critics are wrong over and over again.
You're right. You do provide substantiation and supporting articles, and it's all fascinating reading.
But your supporting info also comes from the demented marxist perspective so proves nothing. One madman(woman) backing up another madman(woman) proves nothing except that they're both mad.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I was not there, but then, neither were you. I'm just voicing my opinion, which happens to be diametrically opposed to yours.
Are you telling me now that you will brook no disagreement with your opinions??

wingrider
09-02-2012, 11:34 AM
any one who has a few mass murderers as their heroes leaves something to be desired in their philosophy in my opinion

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 11:51 AM
Agravan wrote:
You're right. You do provide substantiation and supporting articles, and it's all fascinating reading.
But your supporting info also comes from the demented marxist perspective so proves nothing. One madman(woman) backing up another madman(woman) proves nothing except that they're both mad.

They're books and recorded first-hand accounts, not articles. And only one of the sources I cited was written by a fellow Marxist. Case not made.


Are you telling me now that you will brook no disagreement with your opinions??

Of course! :wink:

Seriously though, I listen to other views. I just expect that, when I present a substantiated case...when I put as much work into making a case as I did here...that it will get a real response (either agreement or a substantiated counter-argument) rather than just casual dismissal. Sound fair?


wingrider wrote:
any one who has a few mass murderers as their heroes leaves something to be desired in their philosophy in my opinion

Mao was the only person on my list in the other thread who you could conceivably be referring to that I can think of.

Considering his military policies, Reagan qualifies by that standard, IMO, yet seems to be quite popular here.

Furthermore, the majority here embrace a man (Goldwater) who actually proposed to USE our nuclear arsenal on Vietnam.

In other words...case not made.

Faults, however terrible, do not automatically exclude one from being considered inspiring OVERALL in my book if their accomplishments mark a significant net improvement in the lives of the masses.

Chris
09-02-2012, 12:09 PM
Polly, you make the following claim:
In The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, Orin G. Libby makes it clear that fully two-thirds of the U.S. population opposed it and remained opposed to it long after it became law.

Here's the Full text of "The geographical distribution of the vote of the thirteen states on the Federal constitution, 1787-8;" (http://www.archive.org/stream/geographicaldis00wiscgoog/geographicaldis00wiscgoog_djvu.txt), could you show us where it says that?

IMPress Polly
09-02-2012, 12:14 PM
The piece in question highlights systematic gerrymandering. It obviously does not make a direct statement on opinion percentages. Anyone with knowledge of the times though can infer from that how small the percentage was that approved of the constitution. That was the essence of my remark.

I do appreciate your decision to follow up and do some investigating of your own! That right there marks an improvement in the level of dialogue we've been having here so far. I do apologize for having put that in a confusing way. Looking back, I can see where you might have gotten the impression that I was directly extracting from a quote in that particular case rather than using inference.

Chris
09-02-2012, 12:21 PM
Libby's "GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION" looks at individual states but so far as I can see does not attempt any general conclusion and from the looks of the study and sources it would take weeks to derive such a conclusion and it wouldn't be very reliable.

Agravan
09-02-2012, 12:33 PM
Polly, I have no problem with your voicing your opinions and, as I said, your posts do provide some thought provoking and entertaining reading. I just happen to disagree with your premises, as well as your analysis on this, and other subjects. Can I provide substantiation for my beliefs/opinions? Probably, if I took the time and effort to do so. But I just don't feel like taking the time. I just know that my beliefs and opinions come from the heart as a true, loyal, American citizen who has a deep love and respect for his country, if not his country's government.
Your perspective seems, to me, to come from someone with a hatred of any non-socialistic type of government. One who refuses to look at the historical consequences of your system of governance and the failure of that system everywhere it has been attempted. I know my system has failures as well, but it did manage to produce the biggest powerhouse economy that the world has ever seen. That system has been eroded by proponents of the system of government you favor. Those proponents who have managed to insert elements of your system into our system and have grown government, debt and misery to the current nightmare that is the U.S. Government. Be they progressives, in either party, or outright socialists, as in Democrats, you, on the left, have managed to do what no external enemy has ever managed, or could ever, do. You have brought this once great country to it's knees. I don't know if we can ever recover from your assault, but we will not go down without a fight. Propaganda from your side notwithstanding.
That would include your demonizing of Reagonus Maximus (:))by comparing him to a common psychopath, Mao.

wingrider
09-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Polly, I have no problem with your voicing your opinions and, as I said, your posts do provide some thought provoking and entertaining reading. I just happen to disagree with your premises, as well as your analysis on this, and other subjects. Can I provide substantiation for my beliefs/opinions? Probably, if I took the time and effort to do so. But I just don't feel like taking the time. I just know that my beliefs and opinions come from the heart as a true, loyal, American citizen who has a deep love and respect for his country, if not his country's government.
Your perspective seems, to me, to come from someone with a hatred of any non-socialistic type of government. One who refuses to look at the historical consequences of your system of governance and the failure of that system everywhere it has been attempted. I know my system has failures as well, but it did manage to produce the biggest powerhouse economy that the world has ever seen. That system has been eroded by proponents of the system of government you favor. Those proponents who have managed to insert elements of your system into our system and have grown government, debt and misery to the current nightmare that is the U.S. Government. Be they progressives, in either party, or outright socialists, as in Democrats, you, on the left, have managed to do what no external enemy has ever managed, or could ever, do. You have brought this once great country to it's knees. I don't know if we can ever recover from your assault, but we will not go down without a fight. Propaganda from your side notwithstanding.
That would include your demonizing of Reagonus Maximus (:))by comparing him to a common psychopath, Mao.
absolutly beautiful.. could not have said it better.. KUDOS to you

Chris
09-02-2012, 01:29 PM
In the end the treason is not the Constitution but the government that refuses to be limited by it and instead erodes our rights.

Peter1469
09-02-2012, 03:21 PM
Mao was the only person on my list in the other thread who you could conceivably be referring to that I can think of.

Considering his military policies, Reagan qualifies by that standard, IMO, yet seems to be quite popular here.

Reagan was not responsible for ~30-40M deaths. When he used US troops he didn't occupy- he did the job and came home. We was one of the most restrained of US Presidents.

Goldie Locks
09-02-2012, 08:02 PM
Winston Churchill said that democracy is a very poor form of government...but it's better than any other form we have been able to come up with.

I'd hate the thought of working my butt off to achieve my goals and dreams only to have it stripped away and given to someone who has not.

Marxism is a classless society with no incentive for individuals to go beyond societal duties, and taking into account that it is HUMAN NATURE to be competitive and achieve success. Socialism FORCES relative failure to achieve Marxist goals as Marxism is simply not compatible with human nature. Socialism ALWAYS leads to tyranny and therefore society becomes deprived...social conflict arises and, though it means to solve problems, it actually creates more.

Chris
09-02-2012, 08:55 PM
Democracy contains the seeds of socialism.

Democracy, Franklin said, was two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

URF8
09-03-2012, 06:12 PM
Democracy contains the seeds of factionalism imo. Factionalism leads to the suicide of democracies.

Shoot the Goose
09-03-2012, 06:48 PM
What a pantload of BS from a libtard who read one synopsis of the Founders to their liking and then reprinted it as fact.

I despise historical cherry-picking stupidity. And the OP oozes it. Take all the Marxist nonsense and GTFO if you don't like it. We're tired of always giving you free-stuff anyway. Go live under your hero Chaves in Venezuela.

IMPress Polly
09-04-2012, 01:40 PM
Polly, I have no problem with your voicing your opinions and, as I said, your posts do provide some thought provoking and entertaining reading. I just happen to disagree with your premises, as well as your analysis on this, and other subjects. Can I provide substantiation for my beliefs/opinions? Probably, if I took the time and effort to do so. But I just don't feel like taking the time. I just know that my beliefs and opinions come from the heart as a true, loyal, American citizen who has a deep love and respect for his country, if not his country's government.

Okay well do you see how that lack of effort on the part not just of you, but indeed of all my critics here collectively in the case of this particular thread, could be a little frustrating in this context, considering the amount of effort put into the thesis of this thread?

Personally, I think you (all of you for that matter) are just copping out. You have no response the thesis of this thread, so you recourse to attacking me and my overall worldview such as to give yourselves a license to dismiss the topic at hand. (And to win cheers from your multitude of ideological allies here.)


Your perspective seems, to me, to come from someone with a hatred of any non-socialistic type of government. One who refuses to look at the historical consequences of your system of governance and the failure of that system everywhere it has been attempted.

I'm a socialist. We can have debates concerning the benefits and faults of capitalism and socialism respectively (elsewhere, where they fit), but realistically you can't expect me to support a generalized capitalist system at this time, sorry.

However, I'm not at all uncritical of either historical or present day attempts at building socialist economies. One example of a fairly extensive critical analysis on the part of yours truly can be found here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5132-Commentary-on-Chinese-History-Documentary), for instance. I think you'll find both there and in continued dialogue with me over time that I'm not a closed-minded dogmatist by any means.

URF8
09-04-2012, 01:54 PM
Polly,

Are you working on a Master's Degree or Ph.D.?

IMPress Polly
09-04-2012, 02:05 PM
I already have a (basic) history degree. However, I may return to school in the evenings next year to begin working toward an accompanying degree in psychology. That's a field of strong interest to me at present.

URF8
09-04-2012, 02:13 PM
I already have a (basic) history degree. However, I may return to school in the evenings next year to begin working toward an accompanying degree in psychology. That's a field of strong interest to me at present.

Good for you. The world needs people with insight.

GCF
09-04-2012, 03:40 PM
Following the surrender of the British, America could hardly have been a poorer nation overall.

When I read this, basically your premise of your post, I scratched my head an said "oh this should be good"!

So answer me this, when did the British surrender to the Americans? Plus who viewed US as a poor Nation?

Fact is the Surrender of Britian never really occured to War of 1812, England refuse to acknowledge America's Independence an the World basically acknowledge England's claim upon the US till all changed in the War of 1812.

As far as the US being a poor Nation? How does one define a Poor Nation, America basically at the time held large reserves of land and riches, cotton and raw materials were still in great demand by the world. Yes, the cities had problems, obviously since the Nation just ended a war with the largest military power of the world, yet poor is a poor choice to use in this situation.

Then the rest of your post seems to only attempt to concrete this notion an the notion of social unrest. Fact is, at the start of the Revolution, man relationship with one an another brought about a marvelous idea. Since the priviledge fought side by side with the not-priviledge very much opposite what European Society thought proper a rather perculiar idea came about. The idea was a man was worth what his labor produced an not by the right of birth. Which is one of the many great things happening in the colonies at the time of the Revolution.

Peter1469
09-04-2012, 04:46 PM
Okay well do you see how that lack of effort on the part not just of you, but indeed of all my critics here collectively in the case of this particular thread, could be a little frustrating in this context, considering the amount of effort put into the thesis of this thread?

Personally, I think you (all of you for that matter) are just copping out. You have no response the thesis of this thread, so you recourse to attacking me and my overall worldview such as to give yourselves a license to dismiss the topic at hand. (And to win cheers from your multitude of ideological allies here.)



I'm a socialist. We can have debates concerning the benefits and faults of capitalism and socialism respectively (elsewhere, where they fit), but realistically you can't expect me to support a generalized capitalist system at this time, sorry.

However, I'm not at all uncritical of either historical or present day attempts at building socialist economies. One example of a fairly extensive critical analysis on the part of yours truly can be found here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5132-Commentary-on-Chinese-History-Documentary), for instance. I think you'll find both there and in continued dialogue with me over time that I'm not a closed-minded dogmatist by any means.


I'm a socialist. We can have debates concerning the benefits and faults of capitalism and socialism respectively (elsewhere, where they fit), but realistically you can't expect me to support a generalized capitalist system at this time, sorry.

Do you have an experience with true capitalism? We tend to have corporatism(or corny capitalism) in the US. How would you compare Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Theory (idealized in I, Pencil) with historical examples of the performance of a command economy. My soon to be ex-wife grew up in the Soviet Union- their command economy got almost every decision incorrect.

Just some advice on posting- I appreciate your long and thoughtful posts and it does pain me when others dismiss them with words like liberal or socialist, or communist. But speaking for myself, I like to go through all the posts that I missed, most days that means three pages of posts to go through. So when I get to a really long one, if I respond at all- and have responded to some of yours, I will pick one point to comment on, rather than to comment on the entire thing. You could expand your points / argument over time, drawing in those interested. Just food for thought.

I do always enjoy reading your ideas. :grin:

Anyway, now feel free to tell me to shut up....

Chris
09-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Okay well do you see how that lack of effort on the part not just of you, but indeed of all my critics here collectively in the case of this particular thread, could be a little frustrating in this context, considering the amount of effort put into the thesis of this thread?

Personally, I think you (all of you for that matter) are just copping out. You have no response the thesis of this thread, so you recourse to attacking me and my overall worldview such as to give yourselves a license to dismiss the topic at hand. (And to win cheers from your multitude of ideological allies here.)



I'm a socialist. We can have debates concerning the benefits and faults of capitalism and socialism respectively (elsewhere, where they fit), but realistically you can't expect me to support a generalized capitalist system at this time, sorry.

However, I'm not at all uncritical of either historical or present day attempts at building socialist economies. One example of a fairly extensive critical analysis on the part of yours truly can be found here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5132-Commentary-on-Chinese-History-Documentary), for instance. I think you'll find both there and in continued dialogue with me over time that I'm not a closed-minded dogmatist by any means.

Oh, come on, polly, I've given you responses that counter your claims about the BOR and your claim Libby's "GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION" says anything like 2/3s the people were against the Constitution. It's you seems to be copping out ignoring such counters to your basic premises.

IMPress Polly
09-06-2012, 02:09 PM
GCF wrote:
So answer me this, when did the British surrender to the Americans? Plus who viewed US as a poor Nation?

Fact is the Surrender of Britian never really occured to War of 1812, England refuse to acknowledge America's Independence an the World basically acknowledge England's claim upon the US till all changed in the War of 1812.

The British formally surrendered in 1783, at least in terms of ending the armed conflict. I really don't care whether Britain or anyone considered us sovereign or not. The fact is that Americans considered themselves sovereign and that's the point. That by itself constitutes nationhood status as far as I'm concerned (even though our economy was broadly still dominated by those of Europe (Britain above all) indeed pretty well right up to the War of 1812).


As far as the US being a poor Nation? How does one define a Poor Nation, America basically at the time held large reserves of land and riches, cotton and raw materials were still in great demand by the world. Yes, the cities had problems, obviously since the Nation just ended a war with the largest military power of the world, yet poor is a poor choice to use in this situation.

Poor as in hungry. I'm pretty sure you'd agree that when the majority know hunger (not food stamps, but actual hunger) on a regular basis, that's poverty indisputably.


Peter wrote:
Do you have an experience with true capitalism? We tend to have corporatism(or corny capitalism) in the US. How would you compare Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Theory (idealized in I, Pencil) with historical examples of the performance of a command economy. My soon to be ex-wife grew up in the Soviet Union- their command economy got almost every decision incorrect.

The mere fact that I'm a Marxist doesn't mean that every thread that I participate in needs to become a debate about the merits and faults of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other, and certainly not about the technocratic Soviet model of socialism, which, despite my continual insistence to the contrary, everyone continues to believe that I consider a going and flawless model. But I do appreciate your other, uplifting remarks. :smiley: I don't get many of those.


Chris wrote:
Oh, come on, polly, I've given you responses that counter your claims about the BOR and your claim Libby's "GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION" says anything like 2/3s the people were against the Constitution. It's you seems to be copping out ignoring such counters to your basic premises.

I've already addressed that subject. And you can furthermore rest assured that I have more than just that one source for the said claim as well. More can be provided as needed.

Chris
09-06-2012, 02:21 PM
I've already addressed that subject. And you can furthermore rest assured that I have more than just that one source for the said claim as well. More can be provided as needed

Then please do provide something to support your claims. Remember the claim was 2/3s Americans were against the Constitution. Good luck!

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 07:31 PM
U.S. Constitution: Your Rights, void where prohibited by "law".


PART ONE:
The 1774 Declaration of Rights, stated that the American People never consented to be governed.

Following the surrender of the British, America could hardly have been a poorer nation overall. .
The poor farmers and workers who as Minute Men at Concord had fired the “shot heard ‘round the world” and who left the imprint of their bleeding feet at Valley Forge and Yorktown;
now found themselves hopelessly indebted to the privileged classes of the coast cities.

In Massachusetts, the masses were finally successful in electing a government pledged to a program of the debtors (the vast majority), which included low taxes and the issuing of new paper money (such as to provide more resources with which to pay debts), “stay laws” postponing the collection of debts, restrictions on the power of the courts (such as to further limit debt collections).
But when the legislature met, the Boston creditors pressured its members into breaking their pledges.

The farmers responded by REGULATING THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

To this the courts responded by attempting to force the collection of debts from the impoverished, at which point the desperate debtors rallied to arms under the leadership of Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays and captured some of the smaller cities.

A similar situation developed in Rhode Island, with the important difference that in this case the debtors were able to seize the legislature and force it to do their will.
The result was something very like civil war, with the debtors trying to force the creditors to accept the paper money that had been issued (which they had plenty of), rather than specie (which they had little, if any, of) as payment for their debts.

In 1776 they were all for paper money, restriction of the power of the courts, “natural rights”, and the whole string of democratic principles.

By 1786 they had rejected all these principles and were defending most of the positions of the English government of King George, while the prerevolutionary principles were left for debt-ridden farmers and workingmen.

It is at least interesting to learn that the ruling class had even the same demagogues to secure popular support, and that Sam Adams was now an ardent defender of the creditor class.


It was under these conditions that the aforementioned wealthy few, feeling greatly threatened by the LAWFUL ACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in now two states,
conspired to overthrow the United States government themselves and forge a replacement more capable of defending their interests.

By 1786 the rich elites had rejected all the American principles and were defending most of the positions of the English government of King George, only it wasn't for the King of England, it was for the wealthy elites who had been coveting King Georges' authority.

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 07:40 PM
No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority


by Lysander Spooner, 1867

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.
It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.
And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.
Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.
Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

Declaration of Independence
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
We were all told that we have consented to be governed.
But, in reality, the public servants agreed to be governed by the American Man.

Declaration of Rights, 1774, The American People never consented to be governed.

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 08:04 PM
The Constitution strengthened the powers of the central government, allowing it now to, among other things, create a national army to defend against any future efforts of Americans to regulate their public servants, and a robust federal court system by which to collect debts.

It also invented a second legislative chamber, the Senate, which was to be elected not by the small and generally affluent portion of the population that was allowed to vote, but by the lower chamber of the Congress, the House of Representatives, such as to further distance the population from the decision-making processes of the government.

In addition to these general benefits for the wealthy and powerful, there were also some more direct commercial benefits for the privileged few who drafted the said constitution, including the central government’s new power to authorize nationwide and international commercial treaties (which benefited both the merchants of the northern states and the slave plantation owners of the southern states; the former because it provided more opportunities and the latter because English merchants were previously running their trading) and to levy protective tariffs in defense of domestic manufacturers.

It also gave significant political advantages to slave-holders by way of the famous three-fifths compromise whereby the owners of slaves would get three-fifths of an additional vote, in addition to their own, for each slave they possessed. (i.e. If hypothetically you owned 101 slaves, for example, your vote would be counted 60 times rather than once like that of everyone else permitted to vote.) Such were the new features introduced.

Lincoln's Communist revolution of 1861, further put America under the power of the elites.

We have not escaped from the treachery of those who attacked the American Men of Massachusetts and created a commercial power structure worse than King Georges'.

IMPress Polly, doesn't need to be a socialist.
Consider that America belongs to Americans. And, that America has a vast value with an equally vast public credit.
Instead of wasting America's wealth fighting wars for the super-rich, that wealth should be going to the American People.

If Khadafi could do it in his country, Why can't we do better? Why not give every head of household, say, 1000 bucks a month as a dividend on America. Why not give interest free loans for houses and businesses?

Can you see how beautiful this could be instead of the ugliness we have come to accept as "reality".

BTW What would it take to put Polly in my press gang of pleasure?