Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

I'm not really sure what's going on here either Straight Up, but I just want to address your theory of collective... After you read this, let me know what you think, please.

The sovereign states formed the federal government as established by the U.S. Constitution for the express purpose to protect and preserve the union of individual states. The founders specifically designed the system with limiting principles, giving the federal government few authorities, while the States retained many powers. The United States was not seen as a nationalistic entity, but as a union of sovereign states. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln used what he perceived to be necessary war powers to subvert the Constitution, and change the perception of our American form of government from a union of individual states that had the ability to nullify and secede if they felt the federal government was acting in an unconstitutional manner, to a nationalistic entity in which the federal government dictates to the states what they can and can't do. Nationalism was never originally intended by the Founding Fathers. The strength of our republic, and the protection of individual liberty, comes from the original idea of state sovereignty.

In the U.S. Constitution the United States is referred to as "them" in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; and Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.

Quotes by the Founding Fathers also provide clues to how they regarded the union of states. The language they used, including grammar, reveals that the founders did not view the United States under the federal government as formed by the U.S. Constitution as a single nationalist entity, but as a union of individual states.

"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live."-- James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

“The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” -- George Washington in a letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, July 19, 1791.

In both quotes, if you locate the words “United States,” you will notice that in both cases the word following “United States” does not end with an “s”. This is a significant clue to understanding how the founders viewed the new country. They saw the United States not as a single nationalistic entity, but in the plural, or as a collection of sovereign states united for the purpose of the protection, and the preservation, of the American way of life under the union.

The first quote reads, “ . . . the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation. . .” The United States is a nation, the quote says so. However, the fact that “exhibit” has no “s” at the end of the word reveals that Mr. Wilson did not see the United States in the singular, or as a nationalistic entity, but as a nation of states - a federation of states. The United States, in this quote, is in the plural. The United States, then, in this quote, could very well have read “these states that are united,” and it would have meant the same thing.

Mr. Washington’s letter reads, “The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” Once again, there is no “s” at the end of the word after “United States,” meaning that Washington was not referring to a single nationalistic entity, but to a collection of sovereign states. As with Mr. Wilson’s quote, George Washington could have written “The States that are united enjoy a scene of prosperity,” and the sentence would have meant the very same thing.

Understanding how the founders viewed the union is important because it reveals much about why they wrote the United States Constitution. The founding document was not written to create a national government, but to create a federal government with the power to protect the union of individual states. In other words, the Constitution enables a governing body to protect and preserve the union of the States that are united.

~ Douglas V. Gibbs

Sicilianthing

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm noted, but I still refer back to the 'Issues' G. Edward Griffin as pertains to the collective of parties/types...

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - That didn't happen in 2015 - it happened in 1776 when the total population was only 2.5 million. And I'm not sure if only 3% picked up their guns but zillaorange is generally correct, most people then really didn't have anything to gain by fighting the British, which is why out of 20 colonies only 13 joined and even then support for the revolution was pretty limited. Our view of history tends to focus on the founders who led the Revolution but they were the wealthy land owners that DID have something to gain. In fact when they established the USA, the rule was you had to be a land owner to vote.

Morgan

This is true about being a land owner, and I have read in the past of some representatives considering reestablishing that law.

straightUp Loc: California

Overall, I agree with what the author is saying here... I think picking up on the slight difference in plural vs singular expressions when referring to the United States is impressively astute. I consider myself an anti-Federalist and so the entire message resonates with me as well. But it doesn't change what I said about collectives because I was speaking in definitive, not relative terms. So yes, when comparing the singular and plural references to the United States, the former is more collective than the latter, but an individual state is still more collective than the counties within it and the counties are more collective than the townships and cities within that.

See what I'm saying? At every step along the way there is a point where people collected their resources and their concerns into political units, every one of them being a collective. And even though every collective takes a little bit of freedom from the individual (because every collective has rules) just about every liberty we enjoy has also been secured through a collective. This is why we hear phrases like... "United we stand, divided we fall" or "Divide and conquer". Humans are social animals, we didn't survive with giant teeth and claws, we survived through communication and being able to achieve things in groups that we can't do as individuals, such as fighting for liberty.

So that's why I take exception when someone says collectives are the opposite of liberty.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I've never looked at the definition of militia...I thought it was pretty neat.

Nickolai

The Heller decision was 5 to 4 decision. The five right wing pecker heads led by Anton Scalia and his shadow Clarence that foisted that decision of on society like they have in decisions such as Citizens United that granted corporations the same rights as an individual when it is clearly not an individual

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Thank you for giving my post your time and consideration. You've done exactly as I had hoped; which was to give me some things to consider.

An anti-Federalist you say? Isn't that the group that advocates for more individual freedoms? (Not sure if I'm wording that correctly)

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

The Obergefell v. Hodges was a 5-4 decision that was foisted on society, but that one was fine by you, right?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

5 to 4...so what? They decided it. Citizens United? Tell me what irks you about that.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>

Ha awesome and great post, beautifully conveyed.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>

Like the Scumbag KhaZionistArian mafia bankster collective who own our Federal Reserve unconstitutionally?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

You're missing the point. A voluntary alliance is quite different from a forced alliance. With the exception of conscription, Americans choose freely to gain and hold America's freedoms.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

So today, since all but foreign sympathizers have a stake in the game, we could expect a larger percentage of.our population to.bring their guns and fight. Maybe 10%? That would be nearly 32 million self armed fighters. No? 20%? 64 million?

Nickolai

In our hunter gathering ancestor societies, any member of the tribe that acted in a selfish manner that member was soon banished from the band to shift for himself with the bears and sabertoothed Tigers