Jump to content

Talk:Articles of Confederation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The style united States of America or United States of America?

The style used in the Articles is 'an upper case "U" in United States of America [[1]]. In the Declaration of Independence, however, a lower case style is used.[[2]]. This confusion evidently crept in early. I recall that a printed version of the Declaration (either before or after the formal signing on August 2, 1776) used an upper case spelling due to a misunderstanding by the printer. Odin 85th gen (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Early talk

No, John Hanson was not the first President of the United States. See [3]. There was no such office at the time he presided over the congress. -- Someone else 22:05 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

John Hanson was also not called "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He was "President of Congress". We should not encourage the misperception that he was referred to as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" during his time in office. See [4] -- Someone else 00:39 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


The Numbers correspond to the article numbers in the original document. The reason that there were some blank numbers is because i am editing the page and will add all the summeries

Part 9 "defines the rights of the central government" -- it would seem like this article should list a summary of them. Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The military, for instance, was always underpaid; at a time when the nation's borders were still vulnerable, the consequences of this could be disastrous.

I edited this to "...the consequences of this, it was worried, could be disastrous." With the perspective of 220 years, do we know yet if this was indeed disastrous? (this would be an interesting analysis, by the way.) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great Britain maintained a series of forts on American land along the Canadian border (the Northwest Posts), in violation of the peace terms, with the intent of creating general disturbance and rallying the Indians against American settlers. The Americans did finally succeed in getting the Posts removed, but IIRC this was not accomplished until the Jay Treaty of 1795. Military campaigns against the tribes of the northern Ohio basin occurred as early as Washington's presidency. The moral basis of land seizure aside, it would have been difficult to keep order in this region with the army in a state of near-collapse. The Spanish likewise held outposts along the Mississippi River, but IIRC these posed less of a concrete threat. (If I had my old textbook notes available, I would be able to offer a considerably better-informed response to all of your queries.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Weren't the delegates and the state legislatures the same people? no, actually they weren't cause the delegates and the state legislatures were different people at times.♥

--

why was there ever a constitution if they new if there was a chance that things won't go the way they wanted it to go?????? ♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice20002 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Military Unrest

Some generals threatened to turn the military against the government if sufficient funds could not be raised.

This nugget of information demands more detail on such a treasonous threat. Did anybody get jailed for this? Was it actually influential on the creation of the Constitution, or just a lone nut? Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was not a lone nut. I have, unfortunately, forgotten both the name of the scheme and the names of all of the people involved, though I think it was called something like the "Newport Conspiracy." -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It was the Newburch Conspiracy whose name you're thinking of, but thats a later event. The trouble mentioned here was rioting troops and veterans in Philadelphia, but I don't think any generals were involved. I'm cecking before update. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was the 'Newburgh' conspiracy, check your spelling MichaelHa 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.

Does this mean a revision of the articles of confederation, or was this revision the Constitution? (And, on a copy editing note, did they endorse the plan on this date, or did they endorse the plan to do the revision on this date?) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 certainly had no authority to produce an alternative document to the Articles. I do not know whether the Congress eventually sided with the Federalists or the Antifederalists. (This is purely speculation, but the fact that the Convention acted outside its authority with impunity may be yet another sign of the weakness of the central government at this time.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The 'plan' was actually a report of the Annapolis Convention (1786]. Congress slightly shifted the requested date and wrote a letter to the states endorsing the call for a meeting. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just my two cents: the "plan" endorsed by the Congress was a major revision of the Articles, to be ratified as such. What emerged was a wholly new Constitution which (technically illegally) superseded the Articles. Since all 13 states did eventually ratify, and if you make the case that the new constitution was a de facto amendment to the Articles, then it turned out legal. But the constitution was to take effect after the ratification of nine states, which means it changed the rules of amendment before it could legally take force under the old rules. Not that any of this matters in the slightest; its just fun.  :-) TimeLord mbw 06:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Was this issue (i.e., the improper adoption of a new "Constitution" without either repealing the Articles of Confederation or using its legal amendment process to change it) ever considered by the Supreme Court??

That would involve the Supreme Court making a determination of its own legitimacy, and if it found itself illegitimate, it would be unable to rightly determine its legitimacy. You can see the problem. Galen M 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinatures and Apology

The version of this page from Jan 14 to Jan 18 was wrong. I added material to the section on the people who signed the articles that was inaccurate. I found it on the Web and it sounded good, so I paraphrased it and inserted it here. Further research showed me it was just plain wrong. I've emailed the site, and if they fix it, I won't name them. But I haven't yet gotten a reply. In the meantime a adjusted our description to match history. My sincere apology to anyone who was bothered by the changes. Thanks, Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I finally got around to fully sorting out the confusion about the signatures by spending some days reading the Journals of the Congress. I hope the article now does a much better job of explaining both the ratification and signing process, as well as WHY there was confusion. Tanks for your patience Lou I 20:05, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

On the term "nation" and the Constitution

I don't want to get into a 'wiki war' here (or whatever the term may be), but I'm not going to accept the interpretation that the Constitution created a single nation. The word nation appears NOWHERE in the Constitution in reference to the United States.

The simple fact is that when the Constitution was written, the terms "state" and "nation" were nearly coterminous. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that expresses or implies that a nation was being created. The term union is accurate, nation is not. That's why it reads "to form a more perfect union," not "to form a nation."

I'm compromising by not explicitly mentioning the fact that the states were originally, and LEGALLY are still today, INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN nations. I'm compromising by just removing the offending passages.

I'll disagree with this. First of all, your argument that the absence of the word 'nation' in the Preamble means that the Constitution was not intended to establish one has no weight. First of all, the original meaning of the word 'nation', and AFAIK the one current at the end of the 18th century, was a culturally cohesive group of people, not a political unit. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the authors of the document would hesitate to peg down in a single word the sort of "more perfect Union" they were creating, leaving that interpretation instead to the reader. I could go on about this, but I don't want to further belabor this peripheral point.
As for your point itself, the states are not entirely independent, and hardly sovereign. Article VI says clearly that the Constitution itself, as well as all federal laws, are "the supreme Law of the Land", thus undermining the sovereignty of the states that existed under the Articles. Long before the creeping expansion of the powers of the federal government during the 20th century, a series of decisions of the Marshall Court put a stop to any insistence on state sovereignty. --Smack 00:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yet it remains that the a statement such as "The United States of America is opposed to..." is grammatically incorrect from the standpoint of the constitutional text itself. The proper construction is "The United States... are...". From which we may infer that neither a nation nor a state was created by the Constitution, but an agreement to act in concert--in union--was. The difference with the Confederation was that the people conferred supremacy on the union. --24.180.28.156 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Articles_of_Confederation article:

  • Can link state legislatures: ...o and seven members. Members of Congress were appointed by state legislatures; individuals could not serve more than three out of any six... (link to section)
  • Can link national government: ... the colonists were reluctant to establish another powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental... (link to section) — links to an article on coalition governments. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link new independence: ...ther powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unic... (link to section) — links to New Independence Township, Minnesota (not what this sentence is talking about). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link unicameral legislature: ...ence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states at the ... (link to section)
  • Can link Great Britain: ...== The [[Treaty of Paris (1783)]], ending hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representa... (link to section)
  • Can link instrument of government: ...fied front when dealing with the European powers. But as an instrument of government, they were largely a failure. Congress could make decisions... (link to section) — about the Instrument of Government, a British constitution. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link national congress: ...onfederation chronically short of funds. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and paying congress... (link to section) — not relevant; links to modern-day institutions called "National Congress." Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link land survey: ...act. The [[Land Ordinance of 1785]] established the general land survey and ownership provisions used throughout later American exp... (link to section)
  • Can link western land claims: ...787]] noted the agreement of the original states to give up western land claims and cleared the way for the entry of new states.... (link to section)
  • Can link federal government: ... convene in [[Philadelphia]] to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Art... (link to section)
  • Can link self-governance: ...ng under this initial document provided valuable lessons in self-governance and somewhat tempered fears about a powerful central govern... (link to section)
  • Can link National Archives: ...4]]. ==Signatories== The copy of the Articles in the U.S. National Archives has a series of signatures on page six. A list of them is p... (link to section)
  • Can link York, Pennsylvania: ...ew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina signed the articles to indica... (link to section) — This one is obvious (and a bit funny). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link John Wentworth: ...gates signed at the next meeting they attended. For example John Wentworth of New Hampshire added his name on August 8th. John Penn wa... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When did Articles dissolve?

Constitution became effective on 3/4/1789 and the Articles were superseded on that date. The ratification date of 1788 is irrelevant.

Norm

Since the Articles were in name & resolution, perpetual, were they not in effect until all 13 states adopted the new Constitution? So for a while perhaps both documents were in effect. Didn't amendment require more than 9 votes? Anyway, can it be clearly said it expired when 9 states ratified the Constitution?--JimWae 21:39, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Yes, because every state in the Union approved the new process for ratifying the Constitution, though they didn't all approve the Constitution itself right away. WikiAce 17:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The convention that created the Constitution was empowered only to amend the articles, thus it seems correct & still NPOV to say that according to the terms of the Articles themselves, they were in effect until 1790 when ALL 13 states approved the Constitution --JimWae 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki does not invent legalisms. The old Congress disbanded when the new Constitution took effect (taht is when 9 states ratified). Rjensen 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that the old Congress sat until 9 states ratified the new one, and then no longer sat, am I right? Still, I do not recall which article states that lack of sittings means the Articles are defunct. Did the holdout states in some way agree to the ending of the Articles before they ratified the new Constitution? --JimWae 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is some relevant info: http://libertariannation.org/a/f11e1.html#3 Apparently the Congress sent the Constitution to the states for approval - however, it did still sit after 9 states had adopted it --JimWae 05:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Consitution did not take effect immediately after 9 states ratified it, it merely took 9 states to have it take effect. It did not take effect officially until March 4, 1789. As for the old Congress and the Articles, I am no legal expert but since the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and any other law that does not conform with it is void did that not automatically nullify the Articles on March 4, 1789 and therefore the old Congress disbanded then?--Kalsermar 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But the holdout states were not part of "the land" until they ratified. So it seems some states were not part of the USA for some time in-between

  • 28 Sept 1787 Congress sends Constitution to States for ratification
  • 2 July 1788 Ratification formally announced
  • 1 Nov 1788 Congress under Articles of Confederation adjourns
  • --JimWae 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of Presidents

I reverted an edit that placed Hanson first. After the Articles were aproved, the list is now in the order in which these men sat in the chair. Lou I 11:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order in which the states ratified the Articles

What's the source on South Carolina being the first? I can't seem to find it on an original source. Just curios. 69.19.2.36 1 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

This website [5] has information on the purported order in which the states ratified the Articles. In sum the order presented on that website is:

  • Virginia
  • South Carolina
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • Georgia
  • Connecticut
  • New Hampshire
  • Pennsylvania
  • Massachusetts
  • North Carolina
  • New Jersey
  • Delaware
  • Maryland

The site also gives about 3 sources for this order, so if anyone has access to those sources (and the order turns out to be true), then perhaps the order of ratification could be included in the article?72.27.57.162 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Some discussion about how government under the Articles failed would improve this article. This is actually what I was looking for when I searched for the page-- what were the inadequacies of the Articles that were corrected by the Constitution? For study about the Constitution, understanding how the historical events that demonstrated how the Articles proved ineffective is pretty fundamental.

Thanks for the article. Jack McGhee 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Jack McGhee


I also think this is a much needed section. Something beyond the fact that the federal gov under the Articles of Confederation had no power to tax. I came here from Whiskey Rebellion, where it is stated that "The ineffective government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation...". To me "ineffective" seems POV, but I'd like to gather a few more facts before I follow the "be bold" philosophy here.

66.173.192.96 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the Articles, there was no national currency, so businesses tried stay away from trading between states for fear of losing money in the exchange of state currencies. There was no standing army of the United States, and if an army needed to be formed for some reason or another, it would take a very long time to organize one. This can be seen in the response to Shays' Rebellion, which I believe it took something like 3 months to create a militia to drive Shays out. Interstate commerce not only suffered because of the lack of a unified currency, but also because there were no laws restricting states from imposing tariffs on goods from other states. And last, Congress had little financial support. It had to ask the states for money and, as you can probably imagine, this didn't get them quite enough money to support themselves. BrettAS (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've been doing some extensive research on the Articles of Confederation and the events leading up to the ratification of the US Constitution, and this page does not approach the issue of the Articles in an unbiased or objective point of view. There needs to be editing so that the pros and cons are presented in a neutral manner, rather than simply the cons so as to explain why they failed.

The explanations contained in the article are true, and were the popular criticisms during the time period of the Articles, but they are not listed as criticisms or areas in need of improvement; just presented as fact.

There are many events and political explanations to explain why the Constitution was ratified after the Articles, few of which are mentioned within the page.

ACloseFollowing 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

very good

Drafted by...?

Shouldn't the article mention who drafted the articles of confederation? That would be helpful.
WiWillieWiki 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that any one person is recognized as the drafter of these Articles. The Second Continental Congress, and committees of it, spent a year working on this. The various articles were written by different people, and most went through various edits before a final version was adopted. T-bonham 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"edentified"

"edentified" is a typo. please fix. -- 85.179.174.79 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


The articles was changed because of the shay's rebellion which showed that the articles gave too much power to the state and not enough power to the national government. this is then when the U.S Constitution was made

Where are the Articles of Confederation kept today?

Are they on display somewhere? 70.88.213.74 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They are kept in the National Archives of the USA, in Washington, DC (as mentioned in the article). But I don't believe they are actually 'on display'. I believe anything on display is a 'replica' of the actual document.
There is only one, single signed copy in existence. It is a faded, damaged, and rather brittle scroll. In fact, the only scans of that scroll are older ones -- rather poor, overlapping in some places and missing other parts of it altogether. But the Archivalist has not allowed any additional scans of this scroll, presumably because of it's delicate condition. T-bonham 06:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that the same state as the Declaration of Independence? Yet that is on display. 132.205.99.122 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, compared to other documents from that era, the Declaration is actually in amazing condition. Of course it's been in an airlock tank as long as the technology to keep it like that has existed. So how long it would survive any handling is in question. 75.177.82.119 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC) AKA (FinalWish on a sucky PC)

Remove disputable statement

Compared to the successor US Constitution, the Articles provided stronger protection of individual liberty. Thus, from the libertarian point of view, they were better than the Constitution, but from the statist point of view they were weaker. Roadrunner 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The Articles couldn't really provide any protection for individual liberty, and theoretically allowed the states to curtail individual freedoms. Simply giving states more power is NOT equivalent to libertarianism. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nature of the government under the articles

There is no doubt that the nature changed, but there is a body of scholarship that does not accept that there were no attributes of nationhood in the United States prior to 1787. You only have to look at statements by Washington and Jay during the debate on the ratification of the Constitution to see the United States already referred to as a nation. This subject is not really covered in the body of the article so it is inappropriate to continue to try to place it in the lede as if there were only one opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For ease of reference, we are discussing the sentence: The Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution on June 21, 1788, changing the relationship from confederacy of states to one central state. Tom wants to eliminate the last phrase, putting a period after 1788.
Tom, I don't see that you have made a relevant counter-argument above. The phrase in question does not contest or question "attributes of nationhood." It is a comment about statehood, not nationhood. "Nation" has to do with language and customs. "State" has to do with political sovereignty. Obviously, since most of the colonists were from Britain, there were attributes of nationhood. Just as obviously, the former colonies had various state constitutions and governments. The Articles were a wartime expedient. They definitely did not set up a central state, with the power of e.g. direct taxation, like the later US Con. The text of the Articles make this quite clear. It was a treaty...
... between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
My concern is that most readers will misunderstand, and erroneously think that the United States was a central state at that time. In reality, becoming a "consolidated" (central) state was a major issue in ratifying the US Con later. Cf: The Federalist Papers, etc. PhilLiberty 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The particular phrase you want restored is "changing the relationship from confederacy of states to one central state". A problem is, as I said, is that you are including in the lede a claim that is not reflected in the body of the article. Nowhere in the article is it discussed that the Constitution formed "one central state". In fact the term is nowhere referenced or defined in the article. The discussion within the article of the purposes of replacing the AOC, based on a reliable source (Jack Rakove), in fact only mentions specific powers deemed necessary for the central government -- it suggests nothing about creating "one central state". I have again reverted restored the original version of the phrase (as well as restored the other revision I made in the lede -- you offered no explanation for why you also reversed this. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Carol Berkin versus Gary Galles

A statement was added to the article sourced to Gary Galles to present the Anti-Federalist opinion of the Constitution. His statement:

The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. ... Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be true in most every respect.

Galles is an economist, not an historian, and the quote is from a political rather than a scholarly website. The boldfaced section that I added is clearly political commentary on events that resulted well after the ratification of the Constitution which is where this article should end.

I replaced the political quote with the following:

The opponents of the ratification of the new Constitution were referred to as the Anti-Federalists. While generally admitting that improvements were needed in the Articles of Confederation, historian Carol Berkin summarizes their opposition:
"Although they agreed [among themselves] that the proposed government was a national rather than a federal government, too poweful to be trusted,they differed widely on which elements of the new government were most dangerous to a republican nation.
What Anti-Federalists did share was a pervasive suspicion, a belief that the Constitution was the end product of a carefully laid conspiracy by a cabal of ambitious men."

The above is from a book published by historian Carol Berkin. It says basically the same thing as the Galle quote without the current political bias. In preferring Galle the other editor wrote as justification, "Sorry, quoting a second pro-centralization historian rather than an opponent is POV." In fact, there is no bias in the Berkin description -- it is an objective historical analysis by an established historian. The issue should be which characterization of the anti-federalists is more accurate, more reliable, more complete, and less biased. The political bias of Galle is clear.

The purpose of the article is not to debate the merits of converting from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution from our modern perspective. Rather it is to show why the change occurred and the views of those who supported it back in the 18th Century and those who opposed it. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom wrote: "The boldfaced section that I added is clearly political commentary on events that resulted well after the ratification of the Constitution which is where this article should end."
I don't agree. If we were doing an article on early flying machines, and had quoted someone as saying that heavier than air machines would never be able to fly, then it would be pertinent to note that airplanes were later invented disproving the contention. If we were doing an article about 1980s personal computers and quoted Bill Gates as saying '640k RAM is more than a personal computer would ever need,' then it is pertinent to note that PCs come standard with gigabytes today. It seems quite pertinent to note that the anti-federalist's predictions of government growth under the Con were pretty much right on. The growth of the US govt since then is non-controversial. Surely you would not debate otherwise. The heroification of the federalists by hiding the fact they were mistaken seems POV and unencyclopedic. We have high school text books for that! PhilLiberty 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to analyze the 18th Century using a 21st Century perspective. The issue for the Anti-Federalists was not "government growth" but government power, specifically the locus of power. I doubt you will ever be able to find a single Anti-Federalist who spoke specifically about "government growth", but if you do it will be an isolated event. The story of the Articles of Confederation ends with the decision to abandon them, the reasons it was necessary to abandon them, and the replacement system they thought they were creating. The evolution of that new system is a different story.
Your statement that "The growth of the US govt since then is non-controversial" is absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no controversy about the size of the Federal government today? Where the controversy is concerns whether the evolution of the government, expedited by significant changes in the Constitution like the 14th Amendment, is a good or a bad thing. You have entered into an article on events which concluded in 1790 value judgments based on the subsequent two centuries of history that, for the most part, are much more about politics, economics, power, and morality that the legal interpretation of the Constitution. You mistake the rhetoric common in those two centuries that encourages abstract references to constitutional law with the interests that have actually shaped the evolution of our government.
But I stray from the subject. The bottom line is that both McDonald and Berkins offer professional, peer reviewed analysis of the situation in America in the 1780's without straying into 21st Century political rhetoric which is 95% of the Galles article. Other than the 21st Century POV by Galles, Berkins' take on the Anti-Federalists is not any different than Galles'. You really should read McDonald's work -- he demonstrates that even right wing extremists can write relatively objective history when they try. I have not seen too many folks associated with the Van Mises people who even try. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that there is no controversy about the size of the Federal government today?"
No, I am suggesting that there is no controversy that the power of government is greater today (by orders of magnitude) than what federalists envisioned, what they thought the Con would allow. Even the most ardent federalists didn't imagine the central govt tax rates of today, large standing armies based in foreign countries, central govt laws outlawing (what were then) common crops, even federal roads. The anti-federalists were quite prescient, in predicting e.g. that the general welfare clause would be used as a wedge for central govt power takeover, and that the Supreme Court would, in the long run, "interpret" in favor of more and more govt power. This is not just 21st century hindsight - before the ink was dry on the Con there was the Alien and Sedition acts, later Henry Clay's corporate subsidy ("internal improvements") and central banking power grab. The War of Northern Aggression ended any semblence of federal govt by consent. The anti-feds saw it coming.
We should use a quote acknowledging that the Con did in fact result in a vastly more powerful state, that the federalists promises were wrong and the anti-federalists warnings were right. The Berkin quote doesn't even hint that the govt became more powerful. PhilLiberty 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that a quote from respected historians carries much more authority that something from a web site with a political agenda. Wikipedia articles are not the place to advance controversial positions. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I will accept a quote from a "respected historian" that acknowledges that the govt did in fact become much more powerful under the Con. Wimping out with psychologising about "suspicions" of anti-federalists, and throwing out red herrings about differing on the exact process and conspiracies just doesn't hack it. Certainly there's a historian that admits the state became more powerful. PhilLiberty 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a solid academic historian: Ralph Ketcham, and a reasonable quote:

Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people. - Ralph Ketcham, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, pg. 383

Is this better for you? PhilLiberty 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations

This article is lacking inline citations. Good examples of proper inline citations are at Pontiac's Rebellion and Red vs. Blue. Cliff smith 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with 2008-Jun-22 edits

Problems: Editorial comment:

  • however this "perpetual" union was dissolved when nine states ratified the US Constitution.

POV:

  • "revisionist" - must go
  • "secession from Britian" - it is not clear hat secede applies to colonies - "winning independence" is not a problem

Misrepresentation:

  • Lincoln's 1st inaugural does not attempt to justify engaging in a war against secession

--JimWae (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#.22to_form_a_more_perfect_Union.22 contains references to SCOTUS decisions that have ruled against some interpretations regarding "sovereignty" of the states --JimWae (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Editorial comment:"however this "perpetual" union was dissolved when nine states ratified the US Constitution."
The quoted statement is factually true - I don't see any editorializing there. Nine (of 13) states opted out of the Articles when they ratified the Con. The other three were not in the "new union." The old "perpetual" union was gone.
  • POV: "revisionist" - must go.
The Clay/Lincoln view was literally revisionist - propaganda to foment a war of forced unification. As cited, virtually all legal scholars (not to mention newspaper editorialists) saw secession as a legal remedy for states. I don't consider "revisionist" to be connotative, but as some may, I'll change "A later 'revisionist' view" to "A later pro-war view."
  • Misrepresentation: Lincoln's 1st inaugural does not attempt to justify engaging in a war against secession.
It makes thinly veiled threats to that effect, i.e. "ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary..." But I'll delete the inauguration reference, since Clay's and Lincoln's warmonger "illegal to secede" argument was made in various places. Perhaps Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley would be a better ref for Lincoln's primary goal of forced unification. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you have made SOME changes to your text but still have issues with your edit. Please put proposed changes here for discussion --JimWae (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained my edits in the edit summary. Please do not do a wholesale reversion without discussion. Please state what "issues" you have here. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Put to the test in the American Civil War"

The introduction states:

An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual." This article was put to the test in the American Civil War.

This is not true. Despite the long discussions regarding exactly when the Articles were dissolved, they clearly were dissolved prior to 1850, and thus well before the Civil War. Therefore, Article XIII was null and void (along with the rest) and could not possibly be tested. Certainly, the perpetual nature of the union was tested, but the 13th article of Confederation was not. Joe Avins (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Whole works by historical scholars, including "Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: the Union & Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War" by Professor Howard Jones, confirm that Lincoln in 1856, like Daniel Webster in 1830, considered "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseperable." The Union they spoke of was the Perpetual Union (of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) that was ratified by all thirteen states in 1781. While it is true that the Articles were superseeded by the US Constitution as a "governing document" the union had been established by the Articles and the Framers recognised this by only seeking to "make it more perfect". This was also Lincoln's stated goal in the Civil War. In fact, Lincoln viewed the Constitution as having transformed an initial compact of the founding states for a union to be the same union, but that was from then on based on a direct relationship between the Federal Government and its people. Hence, it was impossible for individual states to unilaterally withdraw from the union. Further Lincoln stated in his first inaugural speech on March 4th, 1861: "I hold that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the UNION OF THESE STATES IS PERPETUAL...Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the UNION WILL ENDURE FOREVER - it being impossible to destroy it." The above block quote is therefore only stating a historical fact. Odin 85th gen (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The way it was worded, it implied far too strongly that that article was still in effect in 1861. What can be put in lede that is not too over-simplified to invite misinterpretation? Perhaps we could mention that some argued the "perpetuity" article was carried over by the Preamble to the Constitution which replaced it. While that merits inclusion in the wiki-article, it is less important to the lede. Attached to that argument there was almost always a conjunctive argument (that the Constitution was a binding contract) - which seems more persuasive now --JimWae (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The attempted compromise tried to reflect that the US Constitution superceded the Articles and that the Perpetual Union, which only appears in the Articles, was referred to by Lincoln when arguing the case to preserve the integrity of the union before and during the civil war. I would welcome a proposal by you or others to retain this essential idea in the article, to confirm the enduring achievement of the Articles to establish a Perpetual Union.Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • (I thought I added this once, but it seemed to disappear. If others are seeing it twice, I apologize.) I offer the following for the consideration of others more learned than I: "An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that 'their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state' and 'the Union shall be perpetual.' This notion of the 'perpetual union' survived the Articles themselves, and was put to the test in the American Civil War." As the one who started this by observing that a superseded document could not be put to any test, I will say only that, had this been the original wording, I would have had no objection. Joe Avins (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
          • The key point is that the UNION was legally established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and it was made more perfect in the US Constitution. As such, the UNION continued despite the fact that the Constitution succeeded the Articles as the relevant legal contract. Further, Lincoln repeatedly referred to the "perpetual Union" in the Articles in his argument to save the UNION. This confirms that the UNION legally established by the Articles was being put to the test in the American Civil War. This historic contribution of the Articles should be recognised in the Wiki-article about it.Odin 85th gen (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I see that a change has already been implemented, so this is certainly untimely and probably irrelevant, but I'll say it anyway. Responding to Odin 85th gen, let me say that your statement above is exactly correct; "the UNION... was being put to the test." The union, yes, but not Article XIII per se. Joe Avins (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That argument preceded Lincoln's use - and it can only be presented AS an argument - otherwise it is POV. THe other side would also need presentation in the article to balance the POV. That argument is also not the only version used by "unionists". --JimWae (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources will also be needed for various versions of the arguments on both sides. Note that when the Constitution took effect on 4 March 1789, there was no insistence on the perpetuity of the Union - 2 states (NC & RI) had not yet ratified the new Constitution. The Congress of Confederation provided considerable continuity by overseeing the ratification & the elections, but it disbanded itself shortly after the 11th state (NY) ratified the new Constitution.
  • A section on this already exists in the article. Only a brief mention would fit in the lede --JimWae (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that the so-called "perpetual" union was dissolved when only 9 states ratified the US Con. Two of them explicitly reserved the right to seceed, so the "perpetual" part was ignored from the get-go. Probably "perpetual" was bluster to inhibit Britain from trying to reconquer the colonies. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That is an opinion, not a fact. Any statement to that effect must be attributed to a reliable source. older ≠ wiser 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PhilLiberty edits

With my revert of a few minutes ago, it now appears that four different editors have rejected his efforts to inject POV issues into the article. This is complicated by a separate dispute over the issue of the significance of the "perpetual union" to the Civil War era. I suggest that rather than a 4 against 1 edit war that specific proposals being made by PhilLiberty get a consensus before being added back in. The specific effort to reclassify the American Revolutionary War (which got me back involved in this article) as a secession action is simply not mentioned in any significant proportion of the histories of that era. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The points I made above in Problems with 2008-Jun-22 edits were not challenged by anyone. If someone disagrees, then please explain why. To recap and add the newer objection by NS:
  • True or false: The "union" (alliance) between the 13 states was dissolved when a new union was formed by the nine states who ratified the US Con. I say "true." The nine states were a proper subset of the 13 allied states. It is false "victor's history" to claim that the "union" under the Con is the same "union" as the alliance under the Articles, weaseling Civil War era propaganda calling it "a more perfect union" notwithstanding.
  • The contractual view of the US Con predated the illegal to secede view by at least half a century. See the ample evidence given in the Right to Secede section above. There was no response to this evidence.
  • True or false: The American Revolutionary War was a war of secession from Britain. Obviously true.
I think these three points are the main bones of contention here. I'll revert until any of these three are shown to be false. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The body constituted by the Articles continued to meet well after 9 states ratified the Constitution
  • the predominant view of historians is that the American Revolutionary war was a war of revolution. Are you claiming every revolution against a colonial power is a secession? --JimWae (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your first point is irrelevant to the assertion that the nine constituted a new "union." It merely points out that the old alliance and the new "union" existed simultaneously.
  • Yes, every "revolution" by a colony that successfully broke away from its former government is by definition secession. BTW, calling these colonial secessions "revolutions" is arguably a misnomer. A revolution is a war to take over an existing government (e.g. French and Russian revolutions). E.g. Die.net gives "revolution - the overthrow of a government by those who are governed." But the American colonies did not try to take over the government in London - they tried to break away from its power and start their own governments. I know of no historian on earth who would deny that the US seceded from Britain. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Both your points are irrelevant - you have not provided sources. You will not win an edit war on this.
  • How can you deny the following is unbalanced POV? (and even contracts are not unilaterally revokable) --JimWae (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established an alliance ("union") of the thirteen founding states. One legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a contract or compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the contract states may rightfully secede. This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun. This view motivated the near-secession by the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis. Before the American Civil War this view was dominant, and e.g. taught at West Point.[15] A later pro-war view was that the union preceeded the states, and that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states. This view was promoted by Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to justify engaging in a war against secession.[16]

Contracts are unilaterally revocable when the other party reneges on the conditions of the contract and no arbiter has been specified to resolve such a dispute. E.g. You can eject a tenant who refuses to pay rent, even if there is a lease for a long period.

I don't see anything POV about the paragraph above. You have not disputed one single claim in it. I do see that the evidence re the Hartford Convention and Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions might be put in a note.

I'll wait a while before reverting to comply with the 3 revert rule. Unless you come up with some rational reason why the above is POV, I will revert. BTW the definition of "secession" is sourced; OTOH you have not cited a single historian who denies that the American colonies seceded from Britain. It obviously did. Your "perpetual union" thing is clearly POV since it assumes the revisionist war-mongering Webster-Lincoln propaganda is correct. Furthermore, you falsely portray that position as preceeding the contract between states interpretation, when I've given evidence that it's the other way around. (Two states even explicitly reserved the right to secede when ratifying the US Con!) PhilLiberty (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


JimWae, you seem not to know the meaning of the word "secession." Asking me to cite historians to prove that the American colonies seceded from Britain is kind of ridiculous - like asking me to cite a mathematician saying that 2+2=4. But to humor you, here are just a few results from googling "american colonies secession britain":


"... the Quebec Secession case, without any overt citation, confirms two occurrences. First is the American colonies' unilateral secession from England.[31] That is, even if the 1776 Declaration of Independence[32] was unlawful and unconstitutional,[33] subsequent events[34] have conferred legitimacy and legality on that secession." - James A Thomson LLB (Hons), BA (UWA); LLM, SJD (Harvard), Getting Out: Secession and Constitutional Law


"There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment to political thought is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves. ... Nowhere is the under-theorized character of secession and the confusion that results from failure to distinguish it from revolution more evident than in the habit of describing the conflict with Britain and the North American colonies as the "American Revolution." It is true that there were whiggish themes from the ideology of 1688 about restoring the rights of Englishmen, and there were Lockean themes about self-government. But the act of the British colonists in America was an act of secession. It was neither whiggish, nor Lockean, nor Jacobin revolution. The colonists did not seek to overthrow the British government. Commons, Lords, and Crown were to remain exactly as before." - Donald W. Livingston, The Secession Tradition In America


"It is deniable by only the hardest headed American that our independence stemmed from an act of secession from England in 1776 under the style THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This act of secession was opposed by England, and a war was waged against the thirteen colonies until 1783 when “His Britannic Majesty” signed the TREATY OF PARIS acknowledging the independence of the thirteen named British colonies in North America." - Scott T. Whiteman, Esq., Secession - A Peculiar Concept


Also see the video Hume and the Secession of the American Colonies by Ph.D. Donald Livingston


"The United States was born during a time that secession and self determination were not only observed as inalienable rights but were practiced.  Virginia set the example in June of 1776 by declaring her independence from Great Britain.  She along with the twelve other colonies jointly declared their independence the following month.  These were acts of secession and our Independence Day might rightly be called Secession Day." - American Secession Project

PhilLiberty (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A few select references does not change the fact that the overwhelming number of historical works on the American Revolution treat it as a revolution rather than a secession. Phil needs to explain where in Wikipedia policy it says that a less common expression should be used in place of a vastly more common term. The right of revolution was a common term in the 17th and 18th Centuries and was not synonymous with secession. Even if they did mean the same thing, this is no reason why the more common term should not be used.
I have also made it clear in m last edits that whenever secession was raised, it was a minority opinion -- at the Hartford Convention only a few delegates, with the KY and VA Resolutions no other states supported them, and in the Nullification Crisis SC was on its own.
Earlier “evidence” submitted by Phil (Problems with 2008-Jun-22 edits and Right to Secede) consists of nothing but his opinions or his interpretations of ambiguous or out of context quotes quotes. We need reliable, secondary sources, not original research by Wikipedia editors. Same problem with Phil’s analysis of contract law.
The burden of proof in this case is on the party (Phil) who wants to add material -- to this point he has been unable to meet this burden. This failure, as I’ve noted, is not just my opinion -- it’s Phil against everybody else. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Rather than using any full alotment of reverts, I chose to examine the text he had added. Generally, the text was not supported by the refs, or the quotes were selectively chopped & then interpreted. Then, of course, ther's the blatant POV. Still, the article is now better prepared to deal with any such future edits --JimWae (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The war was one for independence from colonial rule. It is nearly unanimously referred to in textbooks as a revolution. The Continentals were not trying to divide an existing country - the colonies were not considered to be either a country or any piece of the UK, but to be a possession of the UK. The colonies were ruled by the UK from the UK, and no colonist had any opportunity to participate as a full member of the government. To call it a war of secession (even if such might be in some sense desciptively valid) flies in the face of the overwhelming use of "revolution" in the literature, and, as we repeatedly see, is an agenda-driven attempt to present a POV--JimWae (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Tom> "... the overwhelming number of historical works on the American Revolution treat it as a revolution rather than a secession." False; all sources treat it as a secession. The pertinent question is whether "secession" or "revolution" is a more accurate term. Since the war for independence did not seek to replace or overthrow the existing government in London, "secession" is the correct term. But I wouldn't object to "won/gained independence" if you have some hang-up about the "s" word.

Tom "I have also made it clear in m last edits that whenever secession was raised, it was a minority opinion -- at the Hartford Convention only a few delegates..." This is a red herring - it misses the point entirely. The question is not whether people supported secession; the question is whether people thought state had a right to secede. The consensus was that states had a moral and legal right to secede, while most at the same time thought it was a bad idea. (E.g. Jefferson, Calhoun, etc.)

I'm more concerned with the false claim that the Webster-Lincoln secession is illegal position predated the contract between states and when the contract is broken secession is a legal remedy position. I've given many quote, and could provide more (e.g. Lord Acton, editorials from American, even northern newspapers prior to the Civil War), but it seems you want to ignore the evidence so why bother? 'I challenge you to find one single citation prior to 1855 which says that secession was illegal. You can't, because that was blatently false Civil War warmonger propaganda put out by Lincoln and Webster to justify their war of forced unification, similar to Bush's claim that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaida. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil says, “False; all sources treat it as a secession.” The first book I picked off my shelf to refute you was Gordon S. Wood’s “The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787”. Page 1 -- “The American Revolution has always seemed to be an extraordinary kind of revolution, and no more so than to the Revolutionaries themselves.”
Phil says, “The question is not whether people supported secession; the question is whether people thought state had a right to secede.” And I provided a long quote (which you deleted with no comment) from Farber that shows there was no clear consensus on the issue among even the founders on the permanence of the Union.
Phil says, “'I challenge you to find one single citation prior to 1855 which says that secession was illegal.” Easy enough. Andrew Jackson in 1832 -- “But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. Gordon Wood's book does treat the War of Independence as a secession. It doesn't use the term, but that is not my claim. It admits that it was a war to achieve independence, i.e. secession. The quote even admits that it was not revolution in the usual sense. This is another red herring - the point is not what books call it, but whether it satisfies the definition of "secession."
  2. The Farber quote addresses whether people predicted permanence, not whether they thought secession was legal. Again, many people who thought secession was legal predicted that states would not assert this right.
  3. That's a good quote - Jackson in response to nullification of the Tariff of Abominations. I stand corrected. So we have Jefferson (quoted above) and the founding fathers, Calhoun, Lincoln in his early days, the Constitution ratifying proclamations of two states, Lincoln in his early days, and the West Point legal text, versus an angry general Jackson.

It is interesting that Jackson was apparently ignorant of the ratification proclamations of the two largest states, Virginia and New York, which explicitly reserved the right to secede. (I.e. when he writes "each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede"). The Virginia ratification put it this way: "... in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...". Incidently, the committee that wrote it were all federalists: Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin, again showing that one can support the right of secession without wanting to secede.

So I stand corrected. Webster (and Jackson) was denying the right to secede as early as 1832. President Andrew Jackson responded with a proclamation denying the right of nullification, and asked Congress for authority to collect the revenue in South Carolina by force if necessary. A bill, known as the Force Bill, was introduced in the Senate, and in the debate upon it Webster had an encounter with Calhoun. His reply to Calhoun, printed as "The Constitution not a compact between sovereign States", is one of his closest legal arguments, but somewhat overmatched by the keen logic of his adversary. - [http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000024373/ Daniel Webster (from NNDB). Nevertheless, it is clear from Virginia's and New York's ratification proclamations and the writings of the "founding fathers" that the compact idea (allowing secession) precedes the secession is illegal theory. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil says, “The point is not what books call it, but whether it satisfies the definition of "secession." Nonsense. Historians of the American Revolution are, I’m sure, familiar with the term “secession” -- they made the decision not to use it in their works. Why exactly are we required to accept your opinion of what they really meant?
Phil says, “The Farber quote addresses whether people predicted permanence, not whether they thought secession was legal”. In fact, Farber made the point that it was not clear whether either side on the permanence issue was talking about legality or practicality. As such, Farber’s opinion is in direct contrast with Lodge’s opinion and it is improper for you to submit Lodge’s opinion as uncontested fact.
Your discussion of New York and Virginia is, at best, a fringe concept, and at worse simply more OR on your part. Neither state mentions “secession” and most people simply accept this language as a restatement of the “right of revolution” -- an entirely different concept from secession. Madison, in a leter to Webster, makes this distinction clear:
”I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”
The main point, however, is that you are still attempting to put your minority view into the article despite the very clear indications that nobody agrees with you. The expansion of your POV agenda into three other articles while you have failed to achieve any agreement here seems like a clear case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


North says, "Historians made the decision not to use it in their works." Nonsense. They simply used the conventional term. I have never heard one deny that the war for secession/independence was a secession.

North says, "It is improper for you to submit Lodge’s opinion as uncontested fact." Right. That's why I included the Farber quote.

North writes, "Your discussion of New York and Virginia is, at best, a fringe concept. ... Neither state mentions “secession” and most people simply accept this language as a restatement of the “right of revolution” -- an entirely different concept from secession." Whether it is a "fringe concept" today is irrelevant; the writers and legislators in NY and Virginia wrote it and approved it. Contrary to North's claim, the right of revolution and the right of secession are almost the same thing. The American colonies exercised the right of secession (since they did not take over the British government); the Frency shortly thereafter exercised the right of revolution (since they took over the existing government.) The Lockean concept of the right to rebel covers both.

North writes, "But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression." I have not claimed (in the article) that anyone asserted a right to seceed "at will." (Though IMO there is such a right.) In this context, the right to secede when oppressed, or when the contract has been violated, will suffice. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil wrote, "They simply used the conventional term." In that case, we need to use the convention term (i.e. revolution). Of course the "fact" is that reliable, scholarly works on the American Revolution generally call it a revolution and do not call it a secession. While it is your OPINION that they actually recognize that what occurred was actually a secession, you have nothing to back that up. Of course, the bottom line is still that you are outnumbered -- we operate on consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added additional sourced information to the "Historical importance" section to further clarify that ideas of the permanence of the Union began under the Articles rather than sometime in the next century as Phill has alluded to. With respect to Jefferson and the reference to his first inaugural address, I have tagged it as "dubious" since it does not have a second party interpretation of its intent. It does not mention "secession" or "compact" and seems to suggest that those "who would wish to dissolve this Union" actually are wrong, holding an "error of opinion". If the first articulation of secession by Jefferson comes in 1816, then the text should say so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Secession vs Independence

A country or people can become independent in more than one manner. They might be granted sovereignty by the prior rulers, or they may have to struggle for it, e.g. by engaging in or threatening resistance of some sort. The latter is secession. Thus, USAmerica and India seceded - the former by war and the latter (to a great degree) by non-violent resistance. Now to the silly question: Did Canada secede? AFAIK Canada was granted commonwealth status without threatening significant resistance, so it did not secede. I hope this clears things up so that you now understand the meaning of "secede." PhilLiberty (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Struggling for "it" is not what makes "it" secession. I checked the first 10 dictionaries at http://www.onelook.com/?w=secession&ls=a -- NONE mention any need to "struggle". Countries, states, & counties can secede entirely peaceably if it agreed upon by the controlling gov't. Historians predominantly do not use the term "secession" for wars of independence from colonial rule. Nor do they use it for peaceful attainment of independence from colonial rule. Few historians, if any, refer to the Union of South Africa as seceding from the United Kingdom. Conflating secession with attaining independence is not informative to the reader. The US did not attain independence peacefully, so the term "revolution" is applicable because ordinarily it suggests a forcible overthrow - whereas "secession" does not ordinarily imply anything so dramatic. Your changes are unreasonable & not supported by the bulk of historians -- & not supported by other editors. I have found no exception to the generalization that those who insist on "secession" terminology in this matter do so to advance a POV agenda. Check some dictionaries before giving lectures on the meanings of words --JimWae (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In addition to everything else that's been said, this discussion has obviously gone way beyond any reasonable relationship to the subject. As far as agenda, the obvious agenda is an attempt to justify Southern secession in the Civil War (you can note various anti-Lincoln themes thrown in by Phil). The problem with this, is that, as Phil noted, CSA secession was justified under compact theory. However nobody in 1776 was talking about compact theory -- they were talking about natural rights and violations of the unwritten but acknowledged British Constitution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gain independence" and "secede" mean the same thing in a political context. I'm satisfied with "gain independence." Its more syllables and a little unwieldly (e.g. the Lockean right to gain independence rather than right to secede), but if people here have a hang up about the word "secede" I'll accept the multi-syllabic alternative. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Right to Secede

Up until the Civil War era, it was generally acknowledged by both legal scholars and the people that states had a right to seceed. Lincoln's the union preceeded the states claim was new propaganda for Lincoln's Republicans, a notion invented by Daniel Webster. The "founding fathers" - even the relatively authoritarian ones like Hamilton, acknowledged the right to secede (though generally thinking it would be unwise.) A few quotes supporting this:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate." - Jefferson letter to James Madison, 1816

The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. - John Quincy Adams

“It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. . . . The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsory force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To . . . authorize suits against States for the debts they owe . . . could not be done without waging war against the contracting State . . . , a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarranted.” - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #81

And Lincoln himself, before he opportunistically flip-flopped:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln 1848

Note that in ratifying the US Con, three states (Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island) explicitly reserved the right to secede. Anyway, this is beating a dead horse; every reliable history text (but not heroifying statist high school texts, unfortunately) acknowledges that the US was founded by secession (from Britain) and held secession to be legally and morally right until Lincoln shreded the Declaration of Independence with his bloody war for forced union. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

North inserted two irrelevant quotes about how parties to a contract should not breach the comtract. But the secession issue is about what recourse a state has if other states have already breached the contract, and about who is the judge of what actions breach a contract. North (apparently) thinks the secession question was about opting out by whim; in fact it was about opting out with cause. Thus, the quotes by Jefferson and Henderson saying states should not breach a contract is irrelevant.
Also, asking for citation of "states may rightfully secede" when numerous quotes to that effect are already cited is rather bizarre. Read the quotes, in the article and above. Should I add more from above? PhilLiberty (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Which presents a balanced viewpoint?

1. < ref>In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." Lodge's view on the unanimity of this view is contested by Judge Caleb William Loring in UNION NOT MADE BY THE WAR</ref>< ref>Farber p. 87. Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founders. Farber wrote:

What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union. The occasional reference to the impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret. They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification. But they could equally have have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down. Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than any lack of legal power. The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable.</ref>

< ref>A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle in 1829, states in chapter XXXII, "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them."</ref>

A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln, was that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states and that the Constitution, being a "more perfect union", continued this perpetuity.< ref>This view, along with the view that the union was a binding contract from which no state could unilaterally remove itself, was included in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address</ref>

OR

2. < ref>In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."</ref>

--JimWae (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The first, of course. That is what is included in the current version, which I am happy with - with minor modifications: 1) pointing out that Webster-Lincoln was a later view, and was used to justify the historically significant Civil War. 2) omitting the claim that seceding as a reaction to breaches was a "competing view" to the idea that contracts should not be breached. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Why did you then keep wasting our time by reverting from 1 to 2 previously? --JimWae (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of the text. The notes were fine. That's what happens when you don't explain your wholesale reverts. I still think that the two quotes about how contracts should be respected are irrelevant to Historical Importance. (Maybe you should put it in the article on contracts.) But I'll let that irrelevancy slide, since you like it so much and North Shoreman used his power as moderator to threaten me. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The text is still biased, with three anti-secession quotes, one neutral quote, and zero pro-secession quotes. Every pro-secession quote is hidden in a footnote. And there is still the problem of relevance for some of the quotes (as noted in (2) above) since they don't address the main issue of secession as a reaction to an unconstitutional law. I'll relegate some of the quotes to footnotes, and elevate some footnotes to text, to balance the section. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight discusses balance and says, “NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.” In fact, the views opposing secession are the dominant view and should have a higher representation in the article.
As far as relevance, you claim that “the main issue [is] of secession as a reaction to an unconstitutional law.” I disagree -- the issue is the permanence of the Union and how the Articles of Confederation relate to that issue. What you have labelled the “main issue” is simply a part of that.
There are several problems with your Jefferson quote. In the first place, the letter was written to William H. Crawford, not Madison. In the second place, it does not discuss secession against an unconstitutional law, but allowing a separation by New Englanders who, according to Jefferson, favored a different trade policy. Here is a fuller version of the quote with your very selective editing of it in boldface:
”The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
Nowhere does Jefferson mention a violation of the constitution. You can check out Dumas Malone’s 6th volume in his biography of Jefferson (p. 148-149) for the context. Malone calls Jefferson’s language in retirement as a “startling declaration”, suggesting that it was out of character.
Likewise, political scientist Thomas L. Krannawitter in the recently published “Vindicating Lincoln” contrasts Jefferson in the 1780s and 1790s with Jefferson after 1800. He writes, “But after his election to the presidency in 1800, he never again spoke that way. The election of 1800 taught Jefferson that under a well-designed constitution, free elections might provide better security for individual rights, along with political stability, that endless, violent revolution, so long as the natural right of revolution provides the political horizon within which free elections are conducted.” (p. 181)
A little later (p. 182) Krannawitter writes of Jefferson’s First Inaugural that “... contrary to Calhoun, [Jefferson] describes ‘absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority’ as the ‘vital principle of republics’ and argues that there is no other appeal except ‘to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.’”
There are two choices -- either take out the inappropriate Jefferson quote and any reference to him favoring secession until you have a reliable, secondary source that describes when and under what conditions he favored secession or, in order to provide accuracy and balance, I will add the material from two reliable, secondary sources that put the quote in context.
On the Lodge quote, balance requires that Loring’s specific rebuttal of Lodge be provided in the main text. The following is an excerpt from that book that is clearly on point (pp. 77-78):
Clinton is one of the four persons whom Mr. Lodge cites as of the opinion that the Union was a dissoluble, precarious, and temporary affair. The letter of Madison to Hamilton —we have before mentioned — in relation to the perpetuity of the Union and that there could be no conditional acceptance, is well known to constitutional writers and historians, and regarded as of the highest authority ; but the more emphatic and decisive declaration of the convention of New York, in its circular-letter to the governors of the different States, signed by Clinton, its President, and ordered unanimously, seems to have escaped all notice. In that letter he and they state to the governor of each State the ratification of the Constitution by New York and her recommendation of certain amendments. He and they add, none of these amendments originated in local views."  ::Our attachment to our sister States, and the confidence we repose in them, cannot be more forcibly demonstrated than by acceding to a government which many of us think very imperfect, and devolving the power of determining whether that government shall be rendered perpetual in its present form or altered agreeably to our wishes and a minority of the States with whom we unite." '
Can anything be more explicit that every one, everywhere, at that time understood the Union was perpetual, than this unanimous address of the convention of New York saying so to all the other States, and the submissive request that they would amend the Constitution in accordance with their wishes?
Again, the choice is include both opinions or neither opinion.
As for the Jackson quote, I am restoring it back, after your undiscussed revert, to the main body. For balance purposes, it is the only quote that specifically addresses a post 1800 view opposing secession as a constitutional right. It may be appropriate to add others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Merchant State"

User: Mrrandal had entered a comment about this Wiki in the WikiCheatSheet at: Merchant State 22


Note: I do not agree with the comment, many did try to profit through protectionism and use government decrees to their economic advantage after seperation from the British - but the comment should be available for consideration


I've copied the comment below:


There is a serious problem with the third introductory paragraph, specifically the part that reads:
When the war ended in 1783, special interests conspired to create a new "merchant state," much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Many of the participants in the closed Constitutional Convention were scrip and/or land speculators.[1] Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition between states made this impossible without a central government.
While this may be acceptable in a section presenting alternative views, it does not represent factual information which is agreed upon and should not be portrayed as such. I'd love to hear what others have to say, but I feel quite strongly it should be removed, I'd never let a statement like this go unchallenged by my students. Mrrandal talk 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Orchus2 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. "Merchant state" is the term used by Albert Jay Nock in "Our Enemy the State," a book which details and documents the western land companies. All but a handful of Constitutional Convention delegates had stakes in such companies. The "assumption" issue (paying off states' war debts) has been discussed in various books, e.g. "Founding Brothers." The attempt of northeastern states to impose high tariffs (which required a uniform tariff so people wouldn't switch to cheaper ports) is also well-known and indisputable. All factual information. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

12 states

Why does the image saw "12 state governments" instead of "13 state governments"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.183.61 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:It's a common misconception that the US started with 13 states right away. The colonies joined in gradually. Virginia did not join until 1788, after the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. Jomasecu talk contribs 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was correct, but I can't verify it on Wikipedia and it's been a long time since history class. Can someone confirm or correct me? Jomasecu talk contribs 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea where I got that, but it contradicts even this article. I need coffee; ignore me. :P Jomasecu talk contribs 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

libertarian

Rather than introduce a term which probably (need source otherwise) was not applicable at the time, the topic should cite the actual factional names. Tedickey (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual names (federalist and anti-federalist) should be named, but their meaning should be explained. Especially in cases where the names of factions are misleading. The people who called themselves "federalists" were in actuality consolidationists. The people who called themselves "anti-federalists" were actually literally federalists. (The other faction grabbed that name first.) Bottom line: The anti-federalists were the people wanting limited government, what today we call "libertarian." PhilLiberty (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible to properly explain the differences between federalist and anti-federalists without using terms like "libertarian" or "statist" which were not used in the 18th Century and which have 21st Century connotations unrelated to the events of the 18th Century. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, we need not limit ourselves to 18th century language to explain these concepts. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Rather than edit warring, let's see if you can get a consensus (or anybody) to agree to your use of the term. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that federalist and anti-federalist are always worth explaining, since at first hearing they are easily misunderstood. Therefore, I appreciate the idea of using more current terminology as a means to get the concepts across. The term "libertarian" can be ambiguous (minarchist vs. anarchist, etc.), so I might offer something like "de-centralist libertarian". --RayBirks (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is using the term "the libertarian factions" as if it were an expression used either at the time by the people involved or since by historians describing the group. It is Original Research (and especially inappropriate in the lede) to coin a unique expression for an historical group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
False. The adjective "libertarian" is used to describe the anti-federalists by many historians, just as "authoritarian" is used to describe Hamiltonianism. Google "libertarian anti-federalist" for details. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
So you say -- any examples from historians who are primarily involved in the American Revolution? In any event, anti-federalists is the much more common name. What exactly is wrong with using terms that the majority of historians use? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are tons of them. Google "libertarian american revolution." The first is Murray Rothbard, who wrote the four volume set "Conceived in Liberty." There are of course many more. You didn't bother to google "libertarian anti-federalist," did you? There is nothing wrong with using "anti-federalist" obviously. There is also nothing wrong with letting the reader know that anti-federalists had a libertarian philosophy. Why do you want to conceal this obvious fact? PhilLiberty (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So someplace in Rothbard's four volumes there is something that supports your claim? Even if that is true, when exactly did libertarian economist Rothbard become recognized as a major historian of the American Revolution? If you truely want to reveal the OBVIOUS FACTS about what the anti-federalists believed, the way to do that would be to add relevant details to the body of the article rther than simply adding an anachronistic term to the lede. Jackson Turner Main, an actual historian recognized as a leading expert on the anti-federalists writes, "Antifederalism was not a single, simple, unified philosophy of government." Main demonstrates that while a weak central government was the primary concern for many, for many others such as the small property owners and small farmers the concern was not just the nature of the government but who would control it. McDougal (in the work you want to cite w/o listing a page number) makes it clear (page 306 and following) that the antifederalists had a variety of interests with little or no agreement on an alternative form of government. Your efforts to fit all antifederalists into a neat package called "libertarians" simply does not hold water. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Articles of Confederation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe the article is well researched and informative, but has one glaring flaw. It does not address the issue of slavery, which was the one contentious issue impeding progress in both the formulation of the Articles of Confederation and the final Constitution. The conflict between the northern states, which were by and large anti-slavery and the southern states, which furiously endeavored to maintain their rights to a slave economy, nearly derailed the organization of the colonies into an effective continental army capable of fighting the British; it nearly derailed the very formation of the United States.

Any article which addresses the origins of the Revolutionary War, the formulation of the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution as ultimately written, should include information on the manner in which the issue of slavery was handled.

Cd195 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Articles_of_Confederation/Archive_1&oldid=947989895"