Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why the Articles of Confederation Were Actually a Success
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2024
- The Articles of Confederation are mostly seen as a failure which created a weak and ineffectual government, soon replaced by the Constitution. In this lecture, professor Paul Gilje tells a different story, and tries to understand how, when seen in context, the Articles were an expression of the values that inspired the Revolution and can help us appreciate the politics of the period.
The USA under the Articles of Confederation was an alliance of thirteen small countries united by a flag, Congress, and Postal Service. The emphasis was on "States."
When the Constitution created and empowered the US Federal Government in 1789, the emphasis was on "United." Centralized executive power (President) and a Supreme Court were established.
Yet as early as 1782, the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin for "Out of the Many, One") was adopted, hinting at the national Unity that would later be sought.
Although the Articles of Confederation proved dysfunctional in the post-war period, it may be argued they were closer to the original spirit of the American Revolution than the Constitutional Republic. Certainly, the Constitutional Republic has grown into a behemoth, with its massive standing armies and policing of the entire planet. As well, its collusion with the big banks and corporations is redolent of the British Crown's collusion with the British East India Trading Company, an arrangement which led to the protest known as the Boston Tea Party.
Perhaps, as Philip K. Dick wrote in VALIS, "Whoever fights the Empire becomes the Empire."
The idea that the usage of "E pluribus unum" conveys a hidden intention to later consolidate doesn't make sense. For one thing, E pluribus unum would suggest they see themselves as being both many and one at the same time. If they wanted to convey a hint of centralization of power why wouldn't they have used the motto: "non multi sed unum"
@@LegalesePodcast I didn't say there was a "hidden intention" to later consolidate. I said it was a hint of the unity that would LATER be sought. A sort of foreshadowing, in other words. And not necessarily intentional.
But while "E Pluribus Unum" does acknowledge both the Many and the One, it says that the Many Produce the One, which implies that the One is the goal.
I don't think "Non Multi Sed Unum" would have worked because it denies the Many, which clearly co-exist alongside the One (even if subservient to the One).
This is very useful and clearly argued. Thanks from England from someone who struggled to learn this in history classes years ago.
They don't really go much into this in American schools as well I believe. There's a mainstream historical take and that is what teachers typically read and teach from. While we should be careful with revisionism, surely we should also not give the wrong impressions of history.
The real question is would the Articles of confederation would even work with 50 states and with all the technology we have today and big businesses especially when it comes to military like nuclear bombs and Some secret military weapons
That depends, do you want to keep all fifty states together. Because if it's alliance someone is bound to split. Like California or Texas tried.
"A league" sounds like the writers of the AoC were thinking of the Greek alliance that was formed to combat the great empire of the time, the Persian Empire
Not certain about the points made but ,if anyone else trying to find out self life coaching try Magic Progress Shortcut (Have a quick look on google cant remember the place now ) ? Ive heard some great things about it and my buddy got amazing results with it.
@@maiberlinhernandez3008 What is the price of rice in China?
Did he categorically answer that question or was he focused on assumptions?
Brilliant!
Well, the straight path is always before us. Bit of this, bit of that. Hooray for George, let the treaties be honoured. And three cheers for Davey Crokett.
If you think the straight path is always before us, you are not looking far enough down the path. Bit O'Honey. Hooray, let treaties with Indians be honored. Many cheers for all the poeple
If anyone else in We the People sees this, hello
Would the Articles be successful NOW? Would they be MORE successful NOW than the Constitution. I would suggest that you look at other videos the overwhelming majority of which point out the flaws-disadvantages of the Articles🤔😉😏🇺🇸
The Articles "were" a success, the Constution "is" more successful. The South adopted the "Confederation" model and the "alleged" problems.
simplistic hogwash