Comment by Karrot_Kream
3 years ago
The concept of a Federal government was only expanded in recent (post Commerce clause) times. Historically, the government was meant to be a thin layer uniting a bunch of States together. Within that framework, the Senate made more sense; it was meant to be more of a UN of the States than a representative body. The Constitution throughout was a balance between populist and non-populist interests as the founders had a strong distrust of purely populist rule.
If you're a believer in the somewhat more modern American ideal of a purely populist government then yes, the current Senate makes more sense, but then it doesn't make sense as to why the Senate grants equal power to each state no matter how populous.
> Historically, the government was meant to be a thin layer uniting a bunch of States together.
This has been an argument since the beginning. The thinnest layer (Confederation) was found non-viable and was replaced by a somewhat thicker layer after about six years. There was a lot of argument then, and a lot of argument after the fact, leading to thinning and thickening of the layer.
> but then it doesn't make sense as to why the Senate grants equal power to each state no matter how populous.
Or, under the previous system, why Senators were elected for 6 year terms when they would more easily represent the states' current interests with 2 year terms.
As it turns out, compared to endless war, global economic whipsaw manipulation, climate crisis, mass incarceration, widespread poverty, and heavily entrenched political corruption, the Articles of Confederation actually were pretty viable.
> As it turns out, compared to endless war, global economic whipsaw manipulation, climate crisis, mass incarceration, widespread poverty, and heavily entrenched political corruption, the Articles of Confederation actually were pretty viable.
I’m not seeing how the AoC would have prevented any of those things. (In respect to some of the global effects, they might have made it more likely the US was part of the global peripheries rather than great power in respect to them, but that doesn’t really change the global situation, just the local experience, and if you think the periphery experience of those things is better…I don’t know how to help you.)
Lol. You’ve won something.
I’ve read some interesting opinions on the internet. But I have never heard anyone advocating a pro articles of confederation position.
Had that stuck around, the US would be a dominated an expansionist New York, surrounded by some expanded British colonial entity in the west. The south would be a backwater set of post-colonial agricultural colonies.
4 replies →
Wars that were taking place under the Articles, the later two of which started during the time of the Articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee%E2%80%93American_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion - Note that this last one was a Civil War.
The US is currently in 24th place on the corruptions index: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/usa
And it seems that corruption was not unknown in the states during the Confederacy period, and is claimed to have increased during the Confederacy: https://www2.byui.edu/i-learn/examples/AF_beforetext.pdf
> Between 1776 and 1787 corruption in state governments increased. States where debtors gained control of the legislatures issued large quantities of paper money which depreciated rapidly in value. In Rhode Island the small farmers in the assembly adopted a Force Act requiring creditors to accept the money at original value. Creditors in other states were also discriminated against by mortgage stay laws which prevented mortgage foreclosures for indefinite periods. The problem of factions within a republic, that was supposed to be solved by keeping republics small like the states, seemed became acute as legislatures became controlled by one faction or another and those factions passed discriminatory legislation.
> There were many disputes and tensions between the states that arose over foreign and interstate commerce. The states began using their power to levy tariffs after the war when England dumped such quantities of cheap goods in America that domestic producers were threatened with ruin. As the tariffs were not uniform among the states, commerce gravitated toward such low-tariff states as Rhode Island. Other states, jealous of this trade, began levying retaliatory tariffs against the goods of those favored states. Merchants and manufacturers wanted an end to destructive interstate tariffs and commercial rivalry, as well as aid in their dealing with foreign governments. States also began to argue with each other over the control of rivers and ports so essential to foreign and interstate trade; causing more bitter disputes between the states.
I got the bookends, you can address "global economic whipsaw manipulation, climate crisis, mass incarceration, widespread poverty" if you want.
9 replies →
the Senate grants equal power because in this way the smaller states do not end up without an equal say.
America built in its own rotten boroughs problem as part of the foundation