Talk:Annapolis Convention (1786)

Untitled
Agree with merge proposal. Two articles, same topic. Geraldk 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree also. Hornje 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose to the merging proposal. This article is about a different event that has nothing to do with the current Anapolis convention. By the way, the name is not even identical. I thinl that a disambiguation page is required here. א.שטיימן (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag, because it has obviously become outdated and irrelevant. When it was placed, the "Annapolis Conference" article was indeed about the same meeting as this article, namely the convention that resulted in the calling of the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. As near as I can guess from a quick glance at the edit history, when the Annapolis Conference of 2007 was announced, that article was changed to one on the 2007 conference. That being the case, the merge that had been proposed has, in effect, already taken place. 6SJ7 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

12 DELEGATES
only 11 are listed Charleebraun (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * St. George Tucker was missing for some reason. Readded. NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The so-called Nationalists were in contempt of the people's original Civil Purpose.
A lot of confusion arises here from the idea of civilization being a shallow interpretation of law and order, where law takes legal precedence over order, instead of the prior original idea of our Founders who established a supreme order firsthand before later utilizing the law as a means to this supreme end. In other words, the order was first established as a natural law by our Founders within The Declaration of Independence before they later established the law within The U.S. Constitution as a means to this end -- with that end being our Civil Purpose. This is a very subtle point. Our Founders didn't create a new Democratic Republic, with this being thirteen separate nation-states balanced with a federal government, based on the former traditions of legal precedence which was usually the case beforehand. No! They utilized the scientific method in use during their time which was natural law in order to establish for the people a new Civil Purpose. After establishing this new natural law, they then had just cause to divorce us out from under the rule of a former tyrant / tyranny before marrying us to a "more perfect union," or what can be thought of as a necessary tyranny, one that can be improved on forever. This is also a very subtle point. The sovereign states spoken about in the Articles of Confederation were legal separate nations but united. This too is a very subtle point. Therefore, the best a so-called nationalist can be is a state rights advocate. The federal government is not a state government just as a Democratic Republic is not a nation. This too is a very subtle point difficult to understand. In conclusion, a person who is a nationalist or believes in nationalism should be considered a "confusionist," or "one who has been confused by the legal system of law to the point of ignorance." The prior information is all based either on original thoughts from the author, within formal documents created by our Founders, or on general knowledge.

50.10.183.240 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Uncle Emanuel Watkins