5 ms·

> Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the p

> Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the promise of liberty contained within them. Or they celebrated their local declarations from 1776. Only during the 1790s was the Declaration revived... It seems relevant here that the late 1770s and 1780s was also the same period when the United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation, rather than the Constitution we have today (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Period). The Articles of Confederation established a much weaker central government than the later Constitution would. So it would make sense, in a regime where the several states were still regarded as near-sovereign entities, that people would look to the founding documents of their state as the guarantors of their liberty. And it also makes sense that, when the weak central government proved unable to meet the challenges of the time and people started thinking about replacing it with a stronger one, new attention would be drawn to documents like the Declaration that spoke from a national perspective.

burfog 7y ago
It was like the EU.
- n4r9 7y ago
  In the sense of being somewhat federalised, maybe, but > had little authority, and could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers. sounds nothing like the EU!
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    Interestingly the EU also doesn't levy taxes. Unlike the US under the Articles of Confederation though, EU member states actually value central government, and so they do actually pay to run it (all EU governments pay in, but EU schemes have the effect that the poorer states get back more than they paid in various forms). That Congress wasn't able to get anything done because in practice the States didn't allow it to get anything done. A lot of the same thinking that's today popular on the US West Coast brought down that government. "Oh, I'd definitely _voluntarily_ pay for a central government, I just don't want mandatory taxes". "Oh did I say I'd definitely pay? I'm short right now, hit me up next month." "Actually I decided I don't want to contribute to anything I'm not totally in favour of, I need veto over all decisions or else I won't be paying". "Huh, funny, why did the government fail?" And that's why the modern US government has tax raising powers. Just as the UK can rightly say it tried not having kings, hated it, so got a new king but now very clearly at the whim of the people; the US can say it has tried not having mandatory taxation and that didn't work so yes it now has taxes (with or without representation) and that won't be changing.
    - FigBug 7y ago
      I'm not an American, how does this compare to current US West Coast?
      - smacktoward 7y ago
        The Californian ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
    - wahern 7y ago
      I grew up in Florida (Rep. Joe Scarborough's district, back when he was a rabid conservative and a leader in the Republican revolution) and Alabama, worked as an intern at a neoconservative K Street think tank in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and went to law school in Virginia in the late 2000s. I've lived and worked on and off in the Bay Area for nearly 15 of the last 20 years, and have plenty of family in Southern California (including a sister and cousin who are active politically, one progressive the other more a Californian conservative), so understand the vibe down there. The sentiments of the techno-utopians on the west coast and the settlers before them shouldn't be equivocated to the anti-civic sentiments of Southern conservatism and the national conservative movement that emerged principally from the Bible belt and Sunbelt states in the 1990s. Keep making that mistake and we'll have decades more of civic and political nihilism. Even the most starry-eyed Silicon Valley billionaires dreaming about basic incomes and robo-basilisks still seek to engage with government and the state. Gingrich, perhaps more than any other politician (he did lead the Republican Revolution, after all), is a walking incarnation of the modern Republican ideology, and he's an avowed nihilist when it comes to government. Similar all-or-nothing, bitter attitudes are creeping into the political left and it will likewise lead to political decay. It's not healthy. People should feel to disagree with and criticize Benihoff, Mayer, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc; but step back and compare them to people like Carla Fioroni. Who's politics should you really be afraid of?
phkahler 7y ago
From the article "Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the promise of liberty contained within them. Or they celebrated their local declarations from 1776." Though it doesn't say when those state constitutions were enacted, it sounds like the states were already separate things. That would explain the lack of interest in the declaration of independence at the time. "But Wilson thought its significance lay elsewhere: in confirming that the United States was born a nation rather than a series of independent states." If there were state constitutions prior to that, I'd say who cares what Wilson thought - facts are facts. Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities? I think a better stance is to say the nation was formed over a period of time, based on a set of principles and ideas (most importantly "we are separate from the old world"). Documents only served to formalize what was happening and agree on how to settle some differences.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  > Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities? The states were meaningful entities as distinct colonies before they declared independence, regardless of the manner in which that independence was declared.
- gumby 7y ago
  Indeed, Massachusetts has the oldest constitution still in force in North America (older than the US federal constitution). People mostly felt loyalty to their own state and that was one reason for opposition to the v2 national constitution, even when it was clear the v1 articles were inadequate. Even so, they are united States (as opposed to, say, Australia where the so-called "states" are for all intents and purposes merely administrative subdivisions of the continent, and could be remade by passing a law in the federal parliament) Source: Massachusetts high school education in a school 150 years older than the MA constitution.
  - frenchyatwork 7y ago
    > Even so, they are united States Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that argument was resolved in 1865.

burfog 7y ago

It was like the EU.

n4r9 7y ago
In the sense of being somewhat federalised, maybe, but > had little authority, and could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers. sounds nothing like the EU!
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Interestingly the EU also doesn't levy taxes. Unlike the US under the Articles of Confederation though, EU member states actually value central government, and so they do actually pay to run it (all EU governments pay in, but EU schemes have the effect that the poorer states get back more than they paid in various forms). That Congress wasn't able to get anything done because in practice the States didn't allow it to get anything done. A lot of the same thinking that's today popular on the US West Coast brought down that government. "Oh, I'd definitely _voluntarily_ pay for a central government, I just don't want mandatory taxes". "Oh did I say I'd definitely pay? I'm short right now, hit me up next month." "Actually I decided I don't want to contribute to anything I'm not totally in favour of, I need veto over all decisions or else I won't be paying". "Huh, funny, why did the government fail?" And that's why the modern US government has tax raising powers. Just as the UK can rightly say it tried not having kings, hated it, so got a new king but now very clearly at the whim of the people; the US can say it has tried not having mandatory taxation and that didn't work so yes it now has taxes (with or without representation) and that won't be changing.
  - FigBug 7y ago
    I'm not an American, how does this compare to current US West Coast?
    - smacktoward 7y ago
      The Californian ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
  - wahern 7y ago
    I grew up in Florida (Rep. Joe Scarborough's district, back when he was a rabid conservative and a leader in the Republican revolution) and Alabama, worked as an intern at a neoconservative K Street think tank in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and went to law school in Virginia in the late 2000s. I've lived and worked on and off in the Bay Area for nearly 15 of the last 20 years, and have plenty of family in Southern California (including a sister and cousin who are active politically, one progressive the other more a Californian conservative), so understand the vibe down there. The sentiments of the techno-utopians on the west coast and the settlers before them shouldn't be equivocated to the anti-civic sentiments of Southern conservatism and the national conservative movement that emerged principally from the Bible belt and Sunbelt states in the 1990s. Keep making that mistake and we'll have decades more of civic and political nihilism. Even the most starry-eyed Silicon Valley billionaires dreaming about basic incomes and robo-basilisks still seek to engage with government and the state. Gingrich, perhaps more than any other politician (he did lead the Republican Revolution, after all), is a walking incarnation of the modern Republican ideology, and he's an avowed nihilist when it comes to government. Similar all-or-nothing, bitter attitudes are creeping into the political left and it will likewise lead to political decay. It's not healthy. People should feel to disagree with and criticize Benihoff, Mayer, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc; but step back and compare them to people like Carla Fioroni. Who's politics should you really be afraid of?

phkahler 7y ago

From the article "Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the promise of liberty contained within them. Or they celebrated their local declarations from 1776." Though it doesn't say when those state constitutions were enacted, it sounds like the states were already separate things. That would explain the lack of interest in the declaration of independence at the time. "But Wilson thought its significance lay elsewhere: in confirming that the United States was born a nation rather than a series of independent states." If there were state constitutions prior to that, I'd say who cares what Wilson thought - facts are facts. Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities? I think a better stance is to say the nation was formed over a period of time, based on a set of principles and ideas (most importantly "we are separate from the old world"). Documents only served to formalize what was happening and agree on how to settle some differences.

Qwertystop 7y ago
> Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities? The states were meaningful entities as distinct colonies before they declared independence, regardless of the manner in which that independence was declared.
gumby 7y ago
Indeed, Massachusetts has the oldest constitution still in force in North America (older than the US federal constitution). People mostly felt loyalty to their own state and that was one reason for opposition to the v2 national constitution, even when it was clear the v1 articles were inadequate. Even so, they are united States (as opposed to, say, Australia where the so-called "states" are for all intents and purposes merely administrative subdivisions of the continent, and could be remade by passing a law in the federal parliament) Source: Massachusetts high school education in a school 150 years older than the MA constitution.
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  > Even so, they are united States Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that argument was resolved in 1865.