tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post3895986369122256447..comments2023-11-29T01:47:52.439-07:00Comments on clarity2010: Chugging right along. Part 3Relax Maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01051381168322495999noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-58914424676466095582009-04-18T08:26:00.000-06:002009-04-18T08:26:00.000-06:00I have to clarify something, Max. The Confederati...I have to clarify something, Max. The Confederation was <i>not</i> the first <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal" rel="nofollow">federal</a> government. A Federation and a Confederation are <i>not</i> the same thing; they are mutually exclusive. We had a confederation followed by a federation since the key element of the latter is a centralized power. It was that conflict from those that favored centralized power to those who preferred autonomy that flavored much of those first formative decades, but I see you get that.<br><br>Sorry, just nitpicking that you called the first post revolutionary government "federal".<br><br>For everything else, including your conclusions, I'm in complete agreement.Stephanie Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17772217449161603561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-78220651314688845852009-04-18T14:13:00.000-06:002009-04-18T14:13:00.000-06:00So there were 13 British colonies which became the...So there were 13 British colonies which became the 13 states of the United States of America. Were the 13 the sum total of the British colonies at the time? Were they all neighbouring? All on the east coast or thereabouts? Was nothing happening in the rest of the future USA? Am I going off at a tangent?A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/04709794851766685322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-71226547061440722452009-04-18T22:01:00.000-06:002009-04-18T22:01:00.000-06:00@Stephanie - Point well taken. I am slinging arou...@Stephanie - Point well taken. I am slinging around the term "federal government" much too loosely when I use it to refer to ANY government which manages the affairs of a group.<br><br>Of course you realize, though, we will lock horns shortly over the AMOUNT of power the states were meaning to give the new federal government in 1787. And I will contend they would be absolutely horrified to see how the dragon has grown over the years. You will have your job cut out if you intend to show me how useful and needed the current federal government is, and how the rights and personal liberties of the citizens are not (or need not be) correspondingly diminished. <br><br>Soon. :)Relax Maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01051381168322495999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-50399871538761233692009-04-18T22:32:00.000-06:002009-04-18T22:32:00.000-06:00@A. - Thank you for still being here and wading th...@A. - Thank you for still being here and wading through this with us. I promise it will get more interesting after a little background has been brought out.<br><br>Yes, 13 colonies (listed on the picture of the "Articles of Confederation" a couple of posts ago, if the print is not too small to read), and those became the first 13 states. Yes, those were the only British colonies in what is now the USA, located contiguously up and down the eastern seaboard, stacked one on top of the other, from what is now Maine (then part of Massachusetts) down to Georgia (Florida was still Spanish then.)<br><br>Yes, a lot was going on in the part that would later become the rest of the USA, but mostly French and Spanish at that time. Largely this vast land was still inhabited and controlled by the First Americans though, rather than any of those European countries.<br><br>Yes, you are going off on a tangent; please try to rein yourself in. :)Relax Maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01051381168322495999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-91913498569294103642009-04-19T07:52:00.000-06:002009-04-19T07:52:00.000-06:00Very interesting we did not do much of USA history...Very interesting we did not do much of USA history at school so this is truly interesting in this summarised way then one does not have to wade through a lot of history books.The 13 states is amazing, waiting to see how it became 52 or are there more now?<br><br>I will continue to learn as you go onfrostygirlhttp://frostygirl.bundublog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-2776740310725006702009-04-19T08:17:00.000-06:002009-04-19T08:17:00.000-06:00If you're looking for an argument that our fou...If you're looking for an argument that our founding fathers never envisioned the power of the federal government (and would be daunted or dismayed), you may be out of luck, at least where I'm concerned. I don't disagree, but I think it's more black and white. They likely never foresaw the collection of humanity we have, the population, the diversity, the change from land-ownership being the mark of the man. That black men and Indians and women were given credence at all.<br><br>They would likely be just as aghast at automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry, at people gunned down by the dozen in schools and places of business. They would likely be appalled at the atomic bomb, at the ungodly amounts of money spent on defense, at the power the US wields around the world since many were dead set against taking an interest anywhere we weren't intending to grab for ourselves.<br><br>They would be struck dumb by our supermarkets and highway systems, our high-rises and air conditioning, our media abilities and the ease we travel and communicate that allows an interaction never possible in their time.<br><br>So what? They were men of a different time, shaped by a different set of challenges. Did they have wisdom? A good deal yes. But they weren't omniscient. Many of their clever government rules were lifted directly from the country they rebelled against (England). Many of their attitudes were intolerant and shortsighted.<br><br>In a hundred years or so, people will say the same thing about many of us. Only history will tell for sure which of us will be dismissed as useless or a blight and which of us were doing good things but didn't really see the big picture.Stephanie Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17772217449161603561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6498413430541424627.post-58831488631255965452009-04-20T21:25:00.000-06:002009-04-20T21:25:00.000-06:00@Stephanie - I don't think I can begin to argu...@Stephanie - I don't think I can begin to argue with all that. Of course times are very different today and of course our main problem is a lot more people compared to back then.<br><br>I have sometimes considered that we have gone though several "countries" since the first one set up by the founding fathers (whoever you choose to put on the list), with the first one giving way to a new order in, say 1820 or so. Certainly the Civil War ushered in another country quite different than it was before, too. Perhaps that's what they mean when they say America continues to reinvent itself in order to cope with whatever obstacles currently exist.<br><br>And it is not just the founding fathers that wouldn't recognize what we have today. Probably those still with us who were born in the 1920s have a hard time believing how different things are compared to in their day.<br><br>One thing has remained constant from the beginning, in my opinion, and that is the federal government has ALWAYS been too big and too unfeeling and too intrusive.<br><br>The more I think about it, the less I am inclined to believe free people need to be forced to do all these things that are "necessary for the common good". Who says so? Who decides? I know; our representatives. Still...<br><br>But I am again ahead of myself, aren't I?<br>---------<br><br>@Soubriquet - you have just GOT to read about this Shays' rebellion thing!Relax Maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01051381168322495999noreply@blogger.com