Well, be fair, it worked out pretty well for quite some time. There are a few points they probably should have foreseen and fixed, but really what were they going to write that would survive the early 20th century progressives and New Dealers saying "Eh, why even pay attention to that document? Let's do whatever."
Well, be fair, it worked out pretty well for quite some time. There are a few points they probably should have foreseen and fixed, but really what were they going to write that would survive the early 20th century progressives and New Dealers saying "Eh, why even pay attention to that document? Let's do whatever."
Saying the British government might as well have been on the moon, regardless of side, is not quite accurate as well. Remember that British governors were appointed, and British troops were stationed to enforce their rulings. While I agree that the Brits weren't so bad all told, they were definitely a relevant concern, not some abstract and distant administration that was of little practical concern.
You raise interesting points. Is it not so that the 13 British Colonies had their own legislative assemblies with tax raising powers, judiciary, law enforcement and militias? They were self-governing and independent in all but name, not so? Greater autonomy than now in fact. British Governors were the King’s representative (Canada still has one) and were mostly Americans, I believe - and made a nice penny too.
The Red Coats were there for protection of British territory and its colonists, not the enforcement of British Government. They manned a line of forts stretching South from the Great Lakes ostensibly to keep the Indians and their mischief-making French allies out, but also to keep the colonists in to stop them encroaching on Indian lands protected by Royal Proclamation and Treaty. Dark side of the Moon: I was referring to temporal distance which for practical purposes is more important than physical distance. You can go to the Moon and back in six days - if you borrow one of Elon’s rockets - it took nearly six weeks for news of the Declaration of Independence to reach London. A twelve week - at best - communication line makes effective government impossible. The Virginia Assembly passed legislation making slave ownership legal... not supported in English Common Law and in contravention of the policy and wishes of the British Government. So much for the effective government from London and Red Coats enforcing it.
So, in my view, the original plan of a loose confederation would have been the wise option, rather than in effect moving the Government from London to Albany. As for written documents. The wise founders based the US Constitution on Magna Carta which was the English Constitution whereby John (it actually was a surrender document) ceded sovereignty to the People, and had tax raising powers removed - no taxation without consent. That is why the Founders gave tax raising powers to Congress not the President. But... they would have known that John started ignoring Magna Carta almost immediately. His Plantagenet successors too, so much so that there were, I think seven redrafts with additions over the next couple of centuries or so, and finally ignoring the provisions of the charter led to the Wars of the Roses. Why therefore the Founders thought their document would last much longer than it took the ink to dry, never mind be adhered to in centuries to come, is strange.
By 1776, the British Monarchy was a Constitutional Monarchy, and the Monarch had lost nearly all executive powers - save some reserve powers, such as to dissolve Parliament, declare war but to be exercised only on the advice of Ministers. Having got rid of one alleged tyrant King with no powers, what logic and reason to create their own ‘tyrant’ absolute monarch - the Imperial Presidency? Constrained by the Constitution? Like the Kings of England were until finally, the message was underlined by cutting off Charles I’s head then reinforced in 1688 by dethroning James II. The signs were all there. I don’t think the Founders were ‘wise’. Clever, well learned, right to want rid of the Westminster Government - but they lost an opportunity to keep government exclusively local, where it always best serves the people. Wasn’t the argument for a federation rather than confederation that a federation would give central government more power and control? Ah! There it is, power and control, not wisdom.
To answer your second question: no, it is not quite so. The colonies had a fair bit of independence it is true, but also quite a bit of rule from afar mixed in. The first few points in the Declaration of Independence specifically point out that the local legislatures were not allowed to pass laws without approval, approval that often never came down one way or the other, along with being dissolved because the crown did not like their decisions. One might wonder why there were British regulars in Boston if they were only there for protecting the colonists, when the fighting against the French and their allies was much further west. Those Great Lakes are a pretty fair march from eastern Massachusetts.
In fact, pardon me for asking, but have you read the Declaration? It pretty much addresses all your points, such that it is confusing that you would state what you did in light of having read it.
Now, I would be sympathetic to the argument that the Articles of Confederacy might have been a better version than the Constitution, or an argument that with the benefit of hindsight the Constitution could have been a lot better written. This argument that the Americans threw off a good government for a bad one, however, that's just silly, as is the claim that the colonies were all but independent already. If a twelve week round trip from London makes government impossible you are left conceding that the entire British Empire was impossible to be governed by the British, as the Americas were one of the closer parts. In fact they sent out their governors and administrators to the localities, setting up local governments to fulfill the wishes of the center. It was a pretty loose joint by modern standards, sure, but that was just the reality of the technology at the time. It doesn't mean that empires never existed, or a people couldn't be ruled by a distant government.
Well, be fair, it worked out pretty well for quite some time. There are a few points they probably should have foreseen and fixed, but really what were they going to write that would survive the early 20th century progressives and New Dealers saying "Eh, why even pay attention to that document? Let's do whatever."
Saying the British government might as well have been on the moon, regardless of side, is not quite accurate as well. Remember that British governors were appointed, and British troops were stationed to enforce their rulings. While I agree that the Brits weren't so bad all told, they were definitely a relevant concern, not some abstract and distant administration that was of little practical concern.
You raise interesting points. Is it not so that the 13 British Colonies had their own legislative assemblies with tax raising powers, judiciary, law enforcement and militias? They were self-governing and independent in all but name, not so? Greater autonomy than now in fact. British Governors were the King’s representative (Canada still has one) and were mostly Americans, I believe - and made a nice penny too.
The Red Coats were there for protection of British territory and its colonists, not the enforcement of British Government. They manned a line of forts stretching South from the Great Lakes ostensibly to keep the Indians and their mischief-making French allies out, but also to keep the colonists in to stop them encroaching on Indian lands protected by Royal Proclamation and Treaty. Dark side of the Moon: I was referring to temporal distance which for practical purposes is more important than physical distance. You can go to the Moon and back in six days - if you borrow one of Elon’s rockets - it took nearly six weeks for news of the Declaration of Independence to reach London. A twelve week - at best - communication line makes effective government impossible. The Virginia Assembly passed legislation making slave ownership legal... not supported in English Common Law and in contravention of the policy and wishes of the British Government. So much for the effective government from London and Red Coats enforcing it.
So, in my view, the original plan of a loose confederation would have been the wise option, rather than in effect moving the Government from London to Albany. As for written documents. The wise founders based the US Constitution on Magna Carta which was the English Constitution whereby John (it actually was a surrender document) ceded sovereignty to the People, and had tax raising powers removed - no taxation without consent. That is why the Founders gave tax raising powers to Congress not the President. But... they would have known that John started ignoring Magna Carta almost immediately. His Plantagenet successors too, so much so that there were, I think seven redrafts with additions over the next couple of centuries or so, and finally ignoring the provisions of the charter led to the Wars of the Roses. Why therefore the Founders thought their document would last much longer than it took the ink to dry, never mind be adhered to in centuries to come, is strange.
By 1776, the British Monarchy was a Constitutional Monarchy, and the Monarch had lost nearly all executive powers - save some reserve powers, such as to dissolve Parliament, declare war but to be exercised only on the advice of Ministers. Having got rid of one alleged tyrant King with no powers, what logic and reason to create their own ‘tyrant’ absolute monarch - the Imperial Presidency? Constrained by the Constitution? Like the Kings of England were until finally, the message was underlined by cutting off Charles I’s head then reinforced in 1688 by dethroning James II. The signs were all there. I don’t think the Founders were ‘wise’. Clever, well learned, right to want rid of the Westminster Government - but they lost an opportunity to keep government exclusively local, where it always best serves the people. Wasn’t the argument for a federation rather than confederation that a federation would give central government more power and control? Ah! There it is, power and control, not wisdom.
To answer your second question: no, it is not quite so. The colonies had a fair bit of independence it is true, but also quite a bit of rule from afar mixed in. The first few points in the Declaration of Independence specifically point out that the local legislatures were not allowed to pass laws without approval, approval that often never came down one way or the other, along with being dissolved because the crown did not like their decisions. One might wonder why there were British regulars in Boston if they were only there for protecting the colonists, when the fighting against the French and their allies was much further west. Those Great Lakes are a pretty fair march from eastern Massachusetts.
In fact, pardon me for asking, but have you read the Declaration? It pretty much addresses all your points, such that it is confusing that you would state what you did in light of having read it.
Now, I would be sympathetic to the argument that the Articles of Confederacy might have been a better version than the Constitution, or an argument that with the benefit of hindsight the Constitution could have been a lot better written. This argument that the Americans threw off a good government for a bad one, however, that's just silly, as is the claim that the colonies were all but independent already. If a twelve week round trip from London makes government impossible you are left conceding that the entire British Empire was impossible to be governed by the British, as the Americas were one of the closer parts. In fact they sent out their governors and administrators to the localities, setting up local governments to fulfill the wishes of the center. It was a pretty loose joint by modern standards, sure, but that was just the reality of the technology at the time. It doesn't mean that empires never existed, or a people couldn't be ruled by a distant government.