American Independence is not what you believe

[evanrick]

239 years ago today the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the 2nd Continental Congress - but you probably don't know how the Bill Of Rights came to exist.


America survived and secured victory over Britain in those 15 years the Continental Congress existed.


The government under which we now live is a post-war Federalist creation in response to that Revolutionary War's debts and lack of presidential power.


But by the time the constitution was ratified in 1781 and put into effect 8 years later America was no longer at war, but federalists saw the defeat of the Crown as an opportunity to take control of the 13 states.


Since 1789 we have been stuck with the federalists idea of a central government.
This central government plan never included a bill of rights, and the country nearly fell apart when the 13 states learned what the delegates were planning.


It was assumed un-enumerated rights, like speech, religion, press, assembly, association, were a given and need not be protected.


However, federalist of the time didn't mention that un-enumerated rights gave the new government carte blanche to trample state governments and individual rights.
A compromise was formed called the Bill of Rights.


The author of the bill of rights was federalist aligned, however, only included the bill of rights into the constitution upon the demand of Thomas Jefferson, a staunch anti-federalist. To not include a bill of rights would have doomed the new constitution and civil war may have broke out sooner.


So the next time you see a conservative, a modern day republican, tout the bill of rights as their license to own guns, remind them without liberals like TJ and the anti-federalist movement they would have no bill of rights and no 2nd amendment.


Two takeaways from this, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill Of Rights are anti-federalist documents.


Things we celebrate and cherish as Americans have absolutely nothing to do with our current federal government, and even less to do with modern day republicans.

 

[ChickenGuy]

As good a thread and a date (July 4th) to ask a question....

Why were North Carolina and especially Rhode Island so reluctant to ratify and sign? And R.I. to the point that it was only one of the thirteen which refused to attend the constitutional convention or to send any delegates? (or so Wiki says) What was it uniquely about those two colonies as opposed to the others that led to so much initial refusal?

 

[hotatlboi]

Trying to apply a term like "liberal" in the modern political context to Jefferson is not really possible and is overly reductive.

Also, in the modern era, there are no anti-federalists except perhaps Libertarians. Both of the major parties favor a strong central government. They just differ on which issues the central government should have authority over.

Though I do agree many of the founders were much less federalist in their leanings than we are today.

 

[Alnitak]

As good a thread and a date (July 4th) to ask a question....

Why were North Carolina and especially Rhode Island so reluctant to ratify and sign? And R.I. to the point that it was only one of the thirteen which refused to attend the constitutional convention or to send any delegates? (or so Wiki says) What was it uniquely about those two colonies as opposed to the others that led to so much initial refusal?

And maryland wouldn't ratify the Articles of Confederation, but because New York wouldn't cede claims in the west.

I don't know the specific reasons but I wouldn't be surprised if it were for the same one. Rhode Island must have been intimidated and North Carolina was probably threatened by the industrialized and populous north. Rhode islands recalcitrance nearly got it treated as a foreign state.

 

[Alnitak]

Our forefathers were consummate compromisers. In today's political climate I'm not sure sure we could pass a constitution, and had we not in 1787 there wouldn't be an America.

 

[opinterph]

North Carolina was the first colony to direct its delegates in Philadelphia to vote for independence. (Halifax Resolves, April 12, 1776)

The Colony of Rhode Island declared itself free and independent of Great Britain on May 4, 1776. (Rhode Island’s Country Party leaders were adamantly Anti-Federalist.)

Virginia was the first colony to instruct its delegates in Philadelphia to propose that the General Congress declare “the United Colonies free and independent states.” (Lee’s Resolution, May 15, 1776)

 

[hotatlboi]

Our forefathers were consummate compromisers. In today's political climate I'm not sure sure we could pass a constitution, and had we not in 1787 there wouldn't be an America.

They also sometimes had more vicious disagreements too though. They would sometimes shoot their political opponents dead in duels or physically assault them on the House or Senate floor. We thankfully haven't had that in the modern era.

 

[mightbe]

While everyone else is jumping in it's worth noting that July 4th as the day the DoI was signed is not only disputed but it is the academic consensus that most signatures happened on August 2, and some signatures by newly elected Congressmen who were elected afterwards. John Adams wrote the July 2nd would be the date remembered in history because that was the day a majority approved a motion for independence (the day after Congress had met in Philadelphia).

July 4th was simply the adoption of the official text (which in and of itself the action is not particularly impressive), though later on in the night the Dunlap broadside copies were printed to be spread around the colonies (somewhat fun). The pretty version we know and love didn't happen until a few weeks later.

 

[Alnitak]

While everyone else is jumping in it's worth noting that July 4th as the day the DoI was signed is not only disputed but it is the academic consensus that most signatures happened on August 2, and some signatures by newly elected Congressmen who were elected afterwards. John Adams wrote the July 2nd would be the date remembered in history because that was the day a majority approved a motion for independence (the day after Congress had met in Philadelphia).

July 4th was simply the adoption of the official text (which in and of itself the action is not particularly impressive), though later on in the night the Dunlap broadside copies were printed to be spread around the colonies (somewhat fun). The pretty version we know and love didn't happen until a few weeks later.

The principle authors all record that they indeed signed it on July 4, and even though our independence day is July 2 that isn't what people read on the top of the document... so it stuck.

 

[evanrick]

Our forefathers were consummate compromisers. In today's political climate I'm not sure sure we could pass a constitution, and had we not in 1787 there wouldn't be an America.

they compromised away the functioning government we had that did fine on its own, it passed the DOI and the bill of rights existed long before the new federalist government took over.

that is what people need to remember about america.

i have done so much research on the topic i am convinced present day federalists, establishment pro government types, dont want us to remember what really happened and go so far as to edit wikipedia with their pro-federalist slants and publish pro-federalist textbooks. my whole HS government textbook was nothing but pro-government spin.

to people who say "its not in the constitution" are the same people who dont want anyone to have any rights. fuck them

they made it part of the constitution and dont want to live with it now that its benefiting people who have historically been disenfranchised, see the recent scotus rulings.

 

[frankfrank]

*sigh*...How do we, as Americans, "unlearn" what parts of history we've been taught wrong, if all the information readily available is otherwise?

 

[mightbe]

The principle authors all record that they indeed signed it on July 4, and even though our independence day is July 2 that isn't what people read on the top of the document... so it stuck.

The text itself was presented as a fair copy on the 4th (after nearly a month of drafting), after the motion for independence had cleared unanimously two days before. If anything was signed on the 4th it would've been Jefferson's fair copy, which would only be symbolic since it had been approved through voting before. The fair copy has been lost, or possibly destroyed in the printing process.

Though Adams, Jefferson and Franklin agree that the text was signed by Congress on the 4th, "signed by Congress" would simply mean approved by Congress rather than "signed by the Congressmen". The two likely signatories of the lost fair copy were only Hancock and Thomson, the President of Congress and the Secretary, as these were the only two needed to make the next official as part of an act of Congress. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams are likely referring to the signing of this copy. If others signed it it was only an act of symbolism.

The official document (different from the official text), was indeed signed by most of 56 on August 2nd. Congress only ordered an engrossed copy to made on the 19th, and this would have been signed over a period of weeks following August 2nd.

 

[Alnitak]

^^^ the delegation was not a constant number. We are not sure how many were actually there on July 4. The last signers did so well into November and weren't even appointed yet in July and some had already left.

- - - Updated - - -

they compromised away the functioning government we had that did fine on its own, it passed the DOI and the bill of rights existed long before the new federalist government took over.

that is what people need to remember about america.

i have done so much research on the topic i am convinced present day federalists, establishment pro government types, dont want us to remember what really happened and go so far as to edit wikipedia with their pro-federalist slants and publish pro-federalist textbooks. my whole HS government textbook was nothing but pro-government spin.

to people who say "its not in the constitution" are the same people who dont want anyone to have any rights. fuck them

they made it part of the constitution and dont want to live with it now that its benefiting people who have historically been disenfranchised, see the recent scotus rulings.

What a joke. The congress of confederation as anything but functioning and it was chronically broke.

 

[mightbe]

I was referring to the eventual total number, sorry, I should have made that clearer.

8 signers weren't elected at the time of the signing at many others signed as the weeks wore on, though many that were present in Congress on August 2nd signed then. Some delegates never signed. The last signature was signed in early November on a "special case" basis.

And then there was the signer who recanted while being tortured by the British.

 

[Benvolio]

This from evenrick "However, federalist of the time didn't mention that un-enumerated rights gave the new government carte blanche to trample state governments and individual rights.
A compromise was formed called the Bill of Rights. "
I am not sure what you mean by "un-enumerated rights". The US Constitution delegated to the Federal government certain very limited powers reserving other powers to the states or the people respectively. The vast expansion down the slippery slope toward total government control was not contemplated by the founders. And please remember, that the expansion has primarily been the doing of the democrats and their obedient Supreme Court justices. The Republicans have and do urge obedience to the wording and original intent of the Constitution. Anything else is a denial of democracy.

 

[thewiz]

Republicans urge obedience and love the Supreme Court so long as it goes their way. You can actually thank the Republican's hero -- Abraham Lincoln -- for not only winning the Civil War but embarking on a federal government that was greatly expanded. The reason the south lost the war was because they could never empower a national government, instead seeking to embrace "state's rights" on anything and everything. The reason this nation became great was not because Arizona or Michigan or Indiana or even Mississippi was great; it was because the united States empowered a central government that the individual greatness led to a corporate (and far greater) power.

The tea bagger (and Republican) mantra of "state's rights" and smaller government seems only to apply to all things not defense. However, the interstate highway system, railroads, airports, power, telephone -- all were envisioned at a federal level and developed across all of the states which enabled the greatness Americans take for granted.

 

[evanrick]

^^^ the delegation was not a constant number. We are not sure how many were actually there on July 4. The last signers did so well into November and weren't even appointed yet in July and some had already left.

- - - Updated - - -



What a joke. The congress of confederation as anything but functioning and it was chronically broke.

the us government is more broke now that it was then. i dont see the connection.

 

[Alnitak]

the us government is more broke now that it was then. i dont see the connection.

False comparison. GDP is no good if you can't tax it.

 

[thewiz]

The biggest problem with the "balanced budget" mentality is that they do not understand the difference between local, state and federal governments when it comes to debt.

In the case of local and state governments, if they would like to construct a building, buy a new helicopter or construct a wastewater treatment plant, they issue general obligation bonds that are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the particular community or state. The bonds normally carry a definitive payment for a specific period of time (10, 15, or 25 years, normally). As the bonds are retired, the titular ownership of the particular asset is transferred to the governmental organization that issued the bonds.

However, in the case of the federal government, they pay for things up front with no concern for "lived expectancy." In other words, if they order six aircraft carriers at $100 billion each, they pay for those in cash up front. If a new federal building needs to be constructed (or renovated), the payment is the current fiscal year. There is no "technical indebtedness." In the time of war or natural disaster, the government spends without issuing bonds (other than war bonds that were issued during WWII which probably would have been a good thing for Afghanistan and Iraq).

Those that desire a "balanced budget amendment" usually are unaware how the federal government operates. The biggest problem is that there is not a guarantee of the re-payment terms for any debt issued except on an annual appropriation basis. President Clinton left a surplus that would have retired the federal debt within the decade; the Bush administration not only blew a hole in that, it returned to record setting deficits (particularly in terms of GDP). To fix the problem would require tax hikes or some type of local-state system which will never happen with the Congress and is like talking Native American languages to legislators. Few understand (one did -- my former Congressman, a Republican, who also happened to be the only nuclear physicist in Congress. He tired of hearing about a balanced budget amendment but then he understood the complexity and basis upon which the feds budget).

It is hard to explain all of that in 30 second sound bites and far easier to compare "household checkbooks, etc." It is also stupid.