reply to post by neo96
this is form Wikipedia.. pay attention to the last sentence..many are ignorant to the historical importance and actually swallow the whole
constitution con-job story of how/why the confederation was flawed/weak. And yet blindly gloss over the whole Rev. war and never realize that just
MAYBE, the king of england, used treachery and deceit to worm his way back into something that was obviously valuable, worth fighting over (america),
and consider this..who allows a war loss keep them from what they want..I mean constitution people are as (if not more) FANATICAL as born again bible
thumpers straight outta 12 steps..I know, it takes an open mind to contemplate these things.
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that legally
established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] It was drafted by the
Continental Congress in 1776-77, went into use in 1777 and was formally ratified by all 13 states in 1781. The Articles gave legitimacy to the
Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations.
Nevertheless, the structural weaknesses became a matter of concern for leaders in every state and in 1789 it was replaced with the U.S. Constitution
which allowed for a much stronger national government, with a president, courts, and taxing powers.
Hmmm.....who's courts? couldn't be the BAR or anything>>
Stronger national government....hmmm,, you mean like a KING? or a body with what the founders would call to much centralized power like a KING? states
being ruled over by a national government like a KING?
TAXING POWERS... like in TAXES??? ----------------> to a KING??? sounds kinda exactly what the founders would have been against huh?
I know, now we could very easily {segway} into the BIGGEST CON in US history.....the (un)Civil war..BOY, that whole articles of confederation that the
founders met in secret, planned to the letter, along with the declaration of Ind., was somehow "hastily" thrown together and flawed (in whom's
eyes?) that it had to be scrapped



keeps coming up..
No, it wasn't about freeing slaves...it was about enslaving everyone..lest we not bring up the following:
1. Ulysses Grant -----had slaves------during and after the civil war....but wait, we was the good guy north general freeing slaves..and had segregated
units?? nah..couldn't be
2. the fact that blacks owned slaves
3. Or the fact that EVERY southern leader kept saying "states rights" over and over...oh no... it was about slavery and freeing
blacks..


4. Or how about the confederacy had sent delegates to Africa in order to locate tribal reps so that the slaves could be taken to their home tribes.
NOT dropped off on Liberia and left to scramble.
5. dont people ever question how ONLY america needed a War to "free" its slaves, or the entire history of southerners voicing and acting to free
slaves.. shush...Mr facts man.."we know it all we went to public school and the govt taught us everything. We little children of less than 12 yrs old
already know the real his story.(king)