GDG- Fighting for your state and therefore there was no perfect union

[Laurence D. Schiller]

Greetings Charlie - I guess we are arguing at cross purposes. It 
wasn't me who talked about a perfect Union. Besides, the wording is 
'In order to create a MORE perfect Union', recognizing that the 
Articles of Confederation were far from perfect. I certainly agree 
with you that it was not, has not, and continues not to be a perfect 
union. I'm not even sure what a perfect union would be. My only point 
was that the founders were trying to create a union from the very 
beginning and never envisioned an entity where one or more of its 
parts could just decide to leave. I do not disagree with what you 
have written below - but add that whatever the South Carolinians 
thought about the power of their state, they were interpreting their 
father's ratification of the constitution wrongly. It is not that I 
think the Federal government was so strong in the early years - it 
clearly was not - but rather, my point is, that the founders intended 
for it to be strong, understanding that it would take time for it to 
become so. Part of the genius of those remarkable men was to convince 
a majority of state leaders to 'hang together' as opposed to 'hanging 
separately'.

Best,

Laurie Schiller


>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>Oh gee now that I pleasantly bowed out of the dance I see that the band
>wants to keep playing. 
>
>So about a PERFECT UNION
>
>I guess the original statement that started this was the reference to a
>PERFECT UNION.  And my comment that there has never been a PERFECT UNION.
>>From 1783 to the 1810's there were many doubters whether the nation would
>survive and with a certain amount of justification.  Many thought that the
>big three European countries were waiting for their chance to invade. Things
>did not look perfect to then.  Britain did not remove its troops until the
>late 1790s.  But internally there have always been division between
>competing and separate interests that were predominately regional. Be it
>fishing, expansion west, trade and yes slavery. Slavery was one of THE
>regional issues that divided the UNION and contributed to decades of
>disharmony. Not a lot of perfection during the first half of the 1800's.  I
>think that it was this issue primarily that led to a defense of states
>rights.  That a central government could not and will not tell us as a state
>that we could not own slaves.  As slavery was a southern state institution
>it is the south that is most associated with states rights.  I lied in my
>previous post - I am reading something other than redcoats and rebels stuff.
>I am reading 'First Blood' the story of Fort Sumter. (another one of the
>high points of my east coast trip- visiting Fort Sumter) It is clear how
>state interests trumped the national interests in the south Carolinians
>minds including their U S Senators and sitting Cabinet members sworn the
>uphold the constitution not their state government. Now there were instances
>in the 1790's where northern states talked about forming a separate nation
>it was mostly the south and the issue of slavery that had the most potential
>for dissolving the union. What would you expect from a state that would not
>ratify the Constitution and was allowed in during the Washington
>administration.  When you have a large population willing to dissolve the
>UNION and threatening it for decades - their was no perfect union.  
>
>I agree with you that the process of becoming a Nation was a lengthy growing
>process.  After all most of the colonies were entities of themselves from
>their Charter by the Crown to governing themselves for 150 years.  It was
>the resolution of the western territory and the opening of the Mississippi
>from the Spanish that triggered expansion and led to greater harmony.  The
>Virginian land speculators began to make money.  Land became available to
>many that could not ever think of being a land owner.  It was still a time
>that only land owners could vote. 
>
>It was not until the Constitution that the government had the ability to
>enter into treaty with other nations.  That was after the Articles left no
>clear way to raise money, control commerce, and negotiate with other
>governments.  So I do not see how you think that so much came out of the
>Continental Congress.  (Once again it was SC that walked out of the 1st CC
>over exportation of rice).  A primary instrument of Samuel Adams to gain
>support from other colonies that if Massachusetts got into a fight with
>British troops they would help. It was said that 'the delegates had given
>the most dangerous man in America the most dangerous weapon he had ever
>held'.  The agreement called the Continental Association was in affect a
>declaration of was and not many men realized it.
>
>Yes the Constitution is an enduring document that has few equals.  It is not
>perfect. But what is?  The founders left it vague so that it could be
>amended as it has been. I guess it can be argued that that has some level of
>perfection in it.  But my point is that the colonies/states had too many
>self-serving interests that caused friction for decades.  It was this
>friction that made the Union imperfect not the Documents that brought about
>the Union. And the behavior of states and the most disruptive to a perfect
>union was SC time and time again.  So it is not surprising that it was the
>first to dissolve the union.  But there was always some group unhappy about
>something.
>
>Charlie
>Somewhere in the USA or back in CA
>


-- 
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller		Civil War First Person Impressions
Maitre d'Armes				William Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
Head Fencing Coach			George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
Department of History
Northwestern University
Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference
Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association
Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division
Lds307 at northwestern.edu
847-491-4654
FAX 847-467-1406
Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/