Thanks for the extension, Everyone! I’ve read the document and have a pretty good grasp on it, I think. Away we go!
My memory is such that a lot of my childhood is just gone. There are bits and flashes, but I have really no cohesive, coherent memories of any time before, say, the age of 18. I had completely forgotten that there was a founding document that came between the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Mr. Chili, when I mentioned it to him, matter-of-factly said “Of course, the Articles of Confederation. What was that? Seventh grade social studies?”
See? THIS is why I’m glad I’m undertaking this little learning project.
Since I have no conscious memory of having studied the Articles of Confederation and, obviously, nothing of any substance to add, I’ve boosted the entire intelligent portion of this post from The National Archives:
Throwing off the British monarchy on July 4, 1776, left the United States with no central government. It had to design and install a new government–and quickly. As early as May 1776, Congress advised each of the colonies to draw up plans for state governments; by 1780, all thirteen states had adopted written constitutions. In June 1776, the Continental Congress began to work on a plan for a central government. It took five years for it to be approved, first by members of Congress and then by the states. The first attempt at a constitution for the United States was called the Articles of Confederation.
This first constitution was composed by a body that directed most of its attention to fighting and winning the War for Independence. It came into being at a time when Americans had a deep-seated fear of a central authority and long-standing loyalty to the state in which they lived and often called their “country.” Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation proved unwieldy and inadequate to resolve the issues that faced the United States in its earliest years; but in granting any Federal powers to a central authority–the Confederation Congress–this document marked a crucial step toward nationhood. The Articles of Confederation were in force from March 1, 1781, until March 4, 1789, when the present Constitution went into effect.
The Articles of Confederation were really all about states’ rights. There were provisions in the document for “a firm league of friendship” among the states “for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…” (remember this line -it’s going to come up again in about six years). The Articles ordered “free ingress and regress to and from any other state*” while mandating extradition of anyone “charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor…” The document forbade any state declaring war or entering into any treaties or agreements with foreign governments - or with any other states - and kept the states from interfering with treaties entered into by the federal government. In Article XI, Canada was “admitted to, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union.”
After reading this document, I can see why it failed. While I think that states’ rights are important, the Union never would have survived without a much stronger centralized power structure - indeed, even with a federal government, the Union almost didn’t survive the Civil War. I almost see this in a classroom metaphor - every student is an individual and can be working to his or her skill level, but there’s a centralized power - the teacher - keeping everyone working toward the same general goals.
That we have a strong and well defined federal government, while still maintaining state sovereignty, is truly an amazing exercise. While it has its definite drawbacks - among them the issue of gay marriage and whether one state has to recognize the laws of another in honoring those contracts - it’s still a pretty damned good system. Precarious, to be sure, and requiring all our diligence to maintain, but pretty damned good nonetheless.
*when I read this line, all I could think of was this scene in The Hunt for Red October:
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck… maybe even a …”recreational vehicle.” And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Borodin: No papers?
Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in… Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Ramius: Oh, at least.
You are probably right that the Articles of Confederation would not have been adequate.
I have watched that movie a number of times and am always inspired by the part you quoted. The freedoms we take for granted here are still just a dream to many. I try not to forget that.
What DOESN’T remind you of a line from “Hunt for Red October”?
If Mr. Chili asks, “Would you like to take a long, hot bath together?” do you say “Somebody messes this up and we’ll be in the middle of the biggest naval battle since Jutland?”
Falcon, I’ve said before that I think it’s possible to pull up an appropriate HfRO quote for pretty much any situation, and I stand by that. I’ve been replaying the “PAVAROTTI!” scene in my head ever since I heard that the man had died…
I think the federal government has far surpassed its legitimate areas of governance.
I love the HFRO, too. And that is the perfect example of a great movie, but a book that I could not get through at all.
Seester, I agree with you on two out of three counts: the federal government as it stands now has FAR surpassed its legitimate areas of governance, and I think that Bush is perhaps the worst thing that could ever have happened to the Constitution and the country. Why we haven’t had a full-on rebellion against our presidential administration is something I can only wonder.
I think that The Hunt for Red October is a top notch movie - I’ve owned it in VHS format AND I have it on DVD (it was, in fact, the first DVD I bought when we purchased our very first DVD player). Where I differ in opinion with you is about the book - I loved the book, too, and have read it multiple times. It’s one that I go back to when I want to have something fun on my side table. A lot of Clancy’s novels are good for that, but HfRO is definitely number 1 (followed in a photo finish by Without Remorse).
I’ll have to loan you some books I have by an author named J. C. Pollock, Mrs. C. His novels were in the same general genre as Clancy’s, but stayed more on the individual level like Without Remorse, as opposed to dealing with global ramifications like HfRO or Cardial of the Kremlin or Sum of All Fears or the like.
I, too, had difficulties with reading the HfRO book, saintseester. My difficulty with it came from, I think, having seen the movie so many times before I got aroundto reading the book. I kept waiting for things from the movie to happen in the book, and they almost never did.
My husband and I were trying to be nice and read things the other one loved. I gave him Orson Scott Card; he gave me Clancy. Sigh, I tried.
I often think that when we work on things like election reform, universal health care and education reform we’re at an enormous disadvantage by virtue of having a vast country to all get on a similar page. It’s interesting to think what we might have been if we were more like Africa or the former USSR than we are now.
As to Tom Clancy, well, yeah tedious and undramatically meticulous but he did teach me how to build my own silencer so he warms my cockles.
Personally, I think congress is the worst thing that has happened to the constitution and the country. The government and government programs started bloating well, well before I was even old enough to vote.