Comment: We

(See in situ)


We

appear to draw different interpretation from the aforementioned quote by Madison in #40.

The states sent delegates of mixed opinion. Some delegates left the Convention as they understood it centered around the crafting of a strong Consolidated Nationalist government - not a federal government. Remember that Congress instructed the delegates to "render the FEDERAL constitution adequate" not merely to create a "firm national government."

That was precisely the point of contention among supposed "Federalists" and their mislabeled enemies the "Anti-Federalists." The debate naturally gravitated toward semantics. From the A-F perspective the convention exceeded the authority of Congress because the document produced for consideration by the states would not establish a federal government, but rather a purely national government with only rhetorical lip-service paid to "federalism." I would suggest that our "Federal" government is about as federal as the "Federal" Reserve, or "Federal" express, or even "Federal" munitions for that matter.

From the view of history, it appears that the obscure Northwest Ordinance was the blueprint by which new states would be introduced into the Union, and what their status free slave ownership would be.

However, the concept of union preceded the NW Ordinance; it was not uncommon for the people of the states to refer to themselves as part of the "United States of America" an expression of unification. Did the NW Ordinance do more to change the fabric of the AOC than the Constitution? Hell to the no. And if I am incorrect regarding this, then please be sure to correct my child-like innocence with your benevolent wisdom. j/k.

But seriously, you should post on this topic if it is so critically important but is now underestimated or disregarded by liberty minded folks.

Thanks!