The Compromise of 1787

The Compromise of 1787, which is the Constitution in effect today and was ratified in 1789. It is arguably on the best Constitutions in effect throughout the world today, but is it a good one? I think for the most part it is a decent one, but I don't think it's one worth fighting for. It's definitely better than having one with such things as mandatory military service or in it's original form no income tax, however...

There was a popular political force in America during the 1780s known as the Anti-Federalist, and it wasn't that they opposed confederation, which is what Federalism meant at the time, but opposed to the rampant centralization in the Federal Constitution proposed by Madison, Hamilton and the Convention in Philadelphia. They were popular and came very close to winning enough states to prevent the ratification, but in the states they thought would win saw narrow losses.

What did they have against the Constitution? It starts as "We, the People", but Patrick Henry argued that it should say "We, the States" as considering the People the political body that passed it was a dangerous statement and it implied we were a consolidated nation, when in fact we were a confederated nation.

I'm going to focus on this point, because I think it is that important. This country was not founded on consolidation and even James Madison believed that Patriotism was a feeble dream to be had of being an American. Most people during this time were more loyal to their state than their "country". Even during the Civil War, Robert E. Lee made his decisions based on his affiliation with Virginia and not the United States. This is what made the United States so unique, it wasn't just a country made up of people of different regions, the regions held very unique power within their own country.

If say, Missouri, did not want to enact a Federal law, they didn't need to, as during the year 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up with the idea of nullification which had nothing to do with slavery and everything to deal with unalienable rights that they fought so hard to earn from the United Kingdom. Thomas Jefferson even said, ""To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." (letter to William C. Jarvis) In other words, the Federal Government can't be trusted to tell the Federal Government can do, seems so logical but, it takes some trying with some people these days.

Many liberal interpretations of the tenth amendment deny that the State's can nullify an action and frankly, it is becoming a dooming enactment towards tyranny. Without State's rights and our confederation within this Federal Republic, we will see our rights go away and our freedoms dissipate. Give me liberty or give me death could not be more apt now, as it was 250 years ago.

We need our Patrick Henry's, Thomas Jefferson's, James Madison's back. We need our Republic back, lest we delve into a consolidated Republic and dive into the well of despotism.