Thread: What is the difference between confederations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

The United states was a confederation between 1781-1788. Each state had a lot of freedoms and could send troops to help defend the confederation as needed. The "centeral government" was loose and could not even enforce taxes.


The final draft of the Articles was written in the summer of 1777 and adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 in York, Pennsylvania after a year of debate. In practice the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the "United States" confederation. The confederation was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories; it could not mint coins (each state had their own currency) and borrow inside and outside the United States. An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual".


Congress was denied the power of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving the Confederation Congress and the Continental Army chronically short of funds. Congress was also denied the power to regulate commerce, and as a result, the states maintained control over their own trade policy as well. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and how to pay the debts became a major issue after the war. Some states paid off their debts; however, the centralizers favored federal assumption of states' debts.

Under the articles, Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. There was a requirement for unanimous approval before any modifications could be made to the Articles. Because the majority of lawmaking rested with the states, the central government was also kept limited.

So is with the EU? But the EU has a lot more power then the old United states of confederation had.

The EU, I believe is a conferation. It has its own "money" called the EURO, it has its own government and even a president that looks over it. This government makes laws and has the power to enforce these laws on its "states" in some ways has a lot more power then the old United states conderation. It can tax and take away from the people inside of its control. But like the United states under the conderation it needs the states to come to its defence. It has a centeral bank, in which I don't believe the United states of Conderation. It has a flag even so it is not offical. It has a lot of "power" over trade and commerce.

Like it or hate it; it is pretty hard not to call the EU a nation. Where do you see wrong with this?

Now onto the UN, it has a body called the general Assembly that has a member of each nation with a "president". It can pass laws even so it can't really enforce it on its member states. It has as a leader called a sec general that works with other nations more or less. It has a flag and has control over International law. More or less it wants all nations to follow what it says. So in a way it is also at least a super loose confederation. It also like every other conferation wants MORE power.

Tell me where I'm wrong or if I'm right??? It just seems like common sense to call them confederations.

Your right, but if you spell out the EU as a nation, most European countries would have riots on their hands, so they whitewash the truth.

The only trouble with the Articles of Confederation, was the lack of uniformity throughout the several states. The states having their own forms of money each left things rather unstable as there were issues of inequity between the states and then of course the bickering. That was the impetous for the Constutional Convention. To try and hammer out a fair and equitable form of government to bind to the states together. So even though things are or were more uniform, the states sharing common ground in the union is still a form of confederation.

As for the EU, I would use the term rather loosely as you have. When the EU usurps the sovereignty of the individual sovereign nations for it's own promotion, and gain in power, it nolonger is a confederation. It becomes a totalitarian entity.

In many respects, since the time of FDR's second term from 1936 to 1940, the Federal Government through FDR's efforts became more powerful than the states. This to me personally was by design. But the drawback is that that entity that gains too much power will never have it's hunger for more satisfied until it has complete and total domination. And if one looks at how things have transpired over the last 50 to 60 years, the Federal has become so big and ominous, that it stifles the states, and yet it hungers for more. It's appetite is insatiable. It [the fed] has become a sprauling octopus that invades individual privacy, and security. The very thing that it [the fed] is supposed to protect.

I had someone from the EU on another website ask if I thought FDR was communist, and I responded, what do you think the "New Deal" was?

Now if you look at the "Great Depression", why did it continue in the states, lon after it started to subside in Europe? By 1933 to 1935 most of the countries in Europe were recovering from it. Most notably Germany. Although Hitler was a madman, he disreguarded the Versille Treaty and quit making the payments for war reparations that devastated Germany, and Europe as a whole financially.

But yet the depression continued up until America's entry into WWII. This is what Congressman Charles A. Lindberg Sr. warned and fought against, with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Every central bank in europe, and our own, is designed off the original template, the Bank of England. And every cetral bank does the opposite of what it promises to prevent. It creates unstability economically.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Your right, but if you spell out the EU as a nation, most European countries would have riots on their hands, so they whitewash the truth.

It is our job to make sure the people know what they are part of. Lets not call the eu anything less then what it is=nation. If the people don't like it then they can "vote" them selfs out or tear it to the ground. Or if they do want it change it into a union they can come to love like we love ours. It is peoples job to make sure other people learn.

Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism.(Joseph H. H. Weiler) â€