Living Free in the Spirit of Christ

Free The Church


We Have the Government the Framers Intended

Posted on April 14, 2011 by Alexander

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation

The Revolutionary War was not fought to create a federal government. The states were already sovereign. They did not want to lose their sovereignty. But they did want to increase their revenue. Independence was declared to form a confederation of the states that would have greater international clout. Just as the later federal constitution only declared the rights already possessed by Americans, the Declaration of Independence only declared the independence Americans already possessed. As soon as the Declaration of Independence was published, the 1st congress convened to ratify the Articles of Confederation. All during the Revolutionary War, Americans operated as a confederated nation, called the United States of America. The government the states agreed to join was the Confederation, not a federal government.   The fighters of the Revolutionary War did not fight to impose a central government upon the states. They fought to establish the Confederation.

Today we misunderstand the difference between a confederation and a federal government. Consider these definitions:

Confederation vs Federation

A union of states in which each member state retains some independent control over internal and external affairs. Thus, for international purposes, there are separate states, not just one state. A federation, in contrast, is a union of states in which external affairs are controlled by a unified, central government.

The Free Dictionary/Legal Dictionary

In a confederation the sovereignty of the individual states is retained, but in a federation the states are subservient to the central government.  Americans back then did not want another variation of a monarchy and realized that a federal government would be just that.  Consider what one writer of the Anti-Federalist Papers had to say about this.

These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination.

The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger.

Anti-federalist No. I – From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.

The southern states were called the Confederates because they sought to restore their sovereignty as originally intended by the Revolutionary War.  Lincoln, however, let them know that their union was no longer voluntary, and that they could not have their sovereignty back.   It was realized even when the Constitution was being drafted to replace the Articles  of Confederation  that civil war would be a by product.

Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted-as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

Anti-federalist No. 3 – published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788

The founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution are overlapping but separate groups of people. The people who wanted a federal government were the framers of the constitution and wrote the Federalist Papers in a variety of publications to persuade Americans to change the government that had already been agreed upon after the Revolutionary War was over. Those framers, no doubt, agreed to the confederation as a first step towards their goal of a powerful central government. It is ironic that the evangelical conservatives frequently cite the Federalist Papers in their arguments for small government. The irony is that 52 of the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton who represented the international banking family known as the Rothschilds. The point of the Federalist Papers was to persuade New York into accepting a central government to replace the current confederation.

Myth of the Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is ballyhooed as a wise safeguard from government control. However, there already was a separation of powers in the confederation as each state retained its own sovereignty. Americans understood back then that a central government would strip that sovereignty away. Early on Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish a central bank for the Rothschilds. He was resisted by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

[Post script added April 18, 2011 In the Anti-Federalist Papers, Number 27, the pseudonymous writer, John Humble, makes this observation:

And, whereas, a number of skillful physicians having met together at Philadelphia last summer, for the purpose of exploring, and, if possible, removing the cause of this direful disease, have, through the assistance of John Adams, Esq., in the profundity of their great
political knowledge, found out and discovered that nothing but a new government, consisting of three different branches, namely, king, lords, and commons or, in the American language, President, Senate and Representatives-can save this, our country, from inevitable destruction.
Published in the Independent Gazetteer, October 29, 1787.

He is writing sarcastically, but consider what he is saying. Government education has hyped up the separation of powers as some unique thing to American government, but in truth, it was seen as merely a variation on the English system by the Americans resisting the Constitution. And history has proven his assessment as correct. There is no separation of powers. They all collude together.]

Despite the arguments that almost persuaded the ratification of the Constitution, it was apparent that the document had no protection of the citizens built into its composition.  Only after the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution did the document get ratification.   In the Texas state constitution, the first Article is a Bill of Rights for the people of Texas, not an after thought amended  at the end.

The history of the United States under the US Constitution is a march towards greater control of the federal government over the states and citizens.  The government we have today is what Alexander Hamilton intended.   We should not be surprised at the continued control of America that the Feds are exerting over us.

Leave a Reply




↑ Top