Comment by bluGill
3 years ago
The founders in 1776 were happy with things in 1788 and generally opposed the constitution. After reading the articles of confederation (yes I actually did that), there are some things that should have been cleaned up, but overall I think it was a good enough system that didn't need to be replaced.
It wasn't, then or in the 1860s, hence the strong, modern, adaptive federalism we have today that treats states as provinces and makes important things move quickly.
One could squint and say states matter today, but that's just admitting a need for glasses. They are ghosts of what they were, and increasingly need to be retired.
It will be nice when we put to pasture the policy-as-experiments across states for things that are clearly universally demanded: finance, health insurance, women's medical care, education, defense, gun control, decreased corporate control of the food supply, transportation, environmental regulation, and so forth. It's amazing how much the modern GOP has pushed folks towards this, may they continue their business Republican-led shenanigans to unite the country and encourage progress when otherwise we would be slovenly.
Why is this the case? Duplication of fixed costs are expensive.
Let's get rid of these crufty overindulgent home-owners-associations-on-steriods and federalize already.
(paragraphs 1, 4 serious, the rest in jest)
While paragraph 3 may be in jest, the non-standization meant that some states did allow women to vote long before it was constitutionally mandated. Of course it also meant some people were enslaved long before it was explicitly constitutionally allowed.
Same with gay marriage. Methinks the GP is taking a LOT for granted about federal programs being implemented well and not subject to the same malaise of partisan gridlock that prevents them from coming into existence.
Something said in jest may yet contain elements of truth! :)
>and increasingly need to be retired.
There's ~150 million people that think the opposite should be done.
Phew, just a minority in the US then that doesn't digest a whole comment. I was worried!
3 replies →
The states switched to the constitution because the confederation was too weak and didn't handle or clarify many important issues. Most of the founders were still around.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_period. "...could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers. The weakness of Congress proved self-reinforcing, as the leading political figures of the day served in state governments or foreign posts. The failure of the national government to handle the challenges facing the United States led to calls for reform and frequent talk of secession".
The people behind the constitution were not the same people behind the articles of confederation. Yes they were around, but they were happy back on their farms and businesses and didn't even realize what was going on until the constitution was nearly a done deal. They rushed back and eventually came up with the bill of rights.
And the federalists were correct about the Bill of Rights too
I don't think this is right. I've read a bunch of people who didn't like The Constitution, but they weren't making full throated arguments for just keeping the status quo. Can you point me to arguments from "the founders in 1776" for just keeping the Articles in their form at the time?
That only makes sense if you think slavery should’ve never been abolished. How would it have ended under the Articles of Confederation?
It doesn't matter whether slavery would have been abolished, because what wouldn't have been legally enshrined without the Constitution were the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments (and later civil rights laws that finally gave power to these amendments), and possibly the 19th amendment.
Well, yes, this is effectively restating my point. Barring the constitution, there was little conceivable way for slavery to be abolished under the Articles of Confederation because there would’ve been insufficient authority to impose that on the states, nor likely the justification to enforce the wholeness of their union.
It would have ended because the Industrial Revolution made slave labor un-economic, in the worst case.
Modern capitalists prefer seasonal labor for agriculture. They don't have to feed/clothe/house people year round, and have no personal investment. Seasonal migrant agriculture labor cheap and easily exploited, with little legal protection. Slaves, like domestic a nimals (reprehensible as that simily is), must be treated well enough to keep working productively. There is no such need with migrant labor. If they are abused or killed it is easy to sweep under the rug. There'll be new migrants available next year.
NOTE: I'm not saying slavery is good, or even better than migrant labor. They are both highly unethical if you consider how corporations treat migrant labor today.
Go read a few slave narratives — Fredrick Douglass’s autobiography for one is great, extremely readable, and pretty short.
And just notice how often the writers mention not having enough food, or basic clothing. Then get back to us on the idea that slave owners would have taken even minimal care of slaves.
You’ve written how you think it ought to have worked. But that’s not how it actually worked.
7 replies →
The industrial revolution radically increased slavery.
Read the history of the cotton gin and then how steam power made larger transportation easier and expanded populations to consume cotton and tobacco. Industrially produced guns and other tools helped "manage" slaves and later prisoners.
Post-civil war, industrial prison system instituted chain gangs to recreate "legal" slavery and forced prison labor still exists in many states.
1 reply →
Slaves worked in a lot of crafts and services, not just field agriculture.
It's weird that you think that they had it better than migrant laborers.
4 replies →
You added a note to try to cover yourself but no, slavery is not comparable, not the same as migratory workers. Migratory workers have it very hard & it's to the shame of America how we treat those vulnerable people at our borders. For migratory workers, generally no one kidnaps their children, rapes them as part of their job, forces them to carry their children to term, murders them, sold them off. It's basically one step away from the classic "black people had it better as slaves" comment.
> It would have ended because the Industrial Revolution made slave labor un-economic, in the worst case.
…except slavery still exists all over the place in industrialized countries? There’s nothing incompatible between industrialization and slavery, as myriad historic and contemporary examples have shown.
https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-...
7 replies →
The industrial revolution predated the abolition of slavery in the US by decades. Indeed, one of the (not very high minded!) gripes of the northern states was that their industrial economies had to compete on an uneven playing field, against states with free labor.