Yes, indeed, the respective states economically meddled with the citizens of their respective states. I do wish I could point to an online source but most of my research was conducted with real live books. They are certainly my preference but I am no stranger to online research. The paucity and sheer absence of plenty of the primary source documentation on the ‘net begs for a transcription project to get this out of the memory hole and into the minds of the netizens. Spooner is here but Storing’s complete Antifederalist papers and the 3000 plus pages from “The Emerging Nation” on foreign relations of the US from 1780-89 are not. The Articles have not been taken seriously because most scholars and laymen alike have the notion that they failed. Well, why? Well, because the government supremacist mandarins that dominate the profession of history have deemed it unworthy of further inquiry.

The beauty of the meddling is that it could literally make people leave if it became too oppressive because the Articles provided for a “marketplace” of polities to choose from in the several states to include the”lawless” west as an escape valve for those of us who would find any presence of government offensive. That safety valve was shut off when the US government officialy arrived on the Pacific coast and all escape was sealed off. Both the state and Western movement option put a subtle pressure on states to ease their tax and regulatory burdens.

You have not inferred this but I am no utopian, I am more dystopian than anything else but I know from my studies and observation of the founding era that the urban concentrations were the fount of government supremacism and oppression so most libertarian thinking folk headed into rural areas or the West. I also made the point that an income tax was not imposed out of government largesse but there simply was zero architecture in place to track money transactions and tremendous barter markets that permeated the colonies.

Thanks for your kind words and keen questions.

I had the pleasure of attending your debate with Howe. From my vantage point in the back rows, I agree that the audience responded positively to your points. Although your assertion that the Constitution has functioned precisely as designed was, for some, a bitter pill to swallow, I didn’t get the sense that anyone dismissed your points out of hand.

Another interesting exchange between the two of you dealt with the use of federal power in creating the transcontinental nation we have today. Being so conditioned to recognize the outline of the contiguous 48 states, I had not considered what America might look like today if we were still under the Articles. One wonders how many lives and liberties were consumed in the name of Manifest Destiny.

Finally, a question, if you have the time. Howe rebutted at one point that the states also meddled in their respective economies. Is he correct, and to what degree did they do so? Can you recommend any easily accessed sources?

Kind regards,