Articles of Confederation: A Guest Essay [sorry, no astrology]

[Guest guest]

News & Commentary The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of Confederation January 26, 2007 by Sheldon Richman Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman. The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected. Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history. Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find honest work. Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the difficulties in perspective, he said the United States did not get its constitution until 1789. Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789. We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR. And thanks for playing our

game.Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't someone who holds himself qualified to be a U.S. senator know that what we call "the Constitution" was really America's second constitution? [*] [*]This means that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July 9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was allowed. "President" here meant precisely president of the United States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers of this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice

President of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice President presides as President of the Senate. There was no executive branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors. The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before Cornwallis

surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783. The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until "the Constitution" displaced them in 1789. The process by which the Articles were scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist "Federal Farmer" (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8, 1787. Quote “A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed.” unquote [Emphasis added.] Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were meant to suggest that what took place in the United States during that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another. Quite the contrary. Freed from Central Coercion How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill Jensen writes, "Americans fought against and freed themselves from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation were written, although there were Americans who wished to do so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the democratization of American society by the destruction of the coercive authority of Great

Britain and the establishment of actual local self-government within the separate states under the Articles of Confederation." Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax or to erect trade barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its potential for de facto quasi-monarchization. People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane, with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded. The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. "The steps in the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and the purpose was clear," Jensen writes. Of course there was

slavery, which contradicted the philosophy espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved against it. "Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed some form of legislation to stop the slave trade," Jensen writes. New England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-slavery societies flourished. What about the economies

of the states? We can infer much from the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles for a new constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire. (But then neither was the consolidated national system after 1789. The first economic action of the first Congress under the Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.) Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans,

trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely agrarian society, Jensen writes, "the dominant note was sounded by American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport towns. . . . Their power was born of place, position, and fortune. They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of the whole people, the state, and the nation." (Hence, the bad name "capitalism" has for many people.) Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on

what kind of government intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about shipping. Part of the impetus toward a strong central government was business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part regulatory cartel. Regional Differences There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated there. The South had little manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little interest in restrictions on foreign carriers. State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money, government banking policies, and other intervention. But the crises were not extraordinary. As Jensen summarizes, "There is nothing in the knowable facts to support the ancient myth of idle ships, stagnant commerce, and bankrupt merchants in the new nation. As long as ago as 1912, Edward Channing demonstrated with adequate evidence that despite the commercial depression, American commerce expanded rapidly after 1783, and that by 1790 the United States had far outstripped the colonies of a few short years before." Despite the heavy intervention, the states still had virtually an unprecedented degree of economic freedom. A person could easily get a plot of land and take care of his family by farming. There was no distant overbearing central bureaucracy to worry about. Contact with government was minimal. Imagine what the economic growth and the justice of income patterns would have been had the states practiced laissez faire! Thus contrary to Sen. Graham, pre-1789 America had a constitution, almost no central government, prosperity, and peace. Not too shabby. The reasons for junking the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution are worthy of study but too big a topic for today. Suffice it say, as Jensen did, that "the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of 1787 were quite a different set of men from those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776." http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1065

 

Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

 

Thanks for this article. It seems that too much central authority does not help much in a healthy development of any country.

 

State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money

 

 

The US rectified chart was in Mo/Me and

Mo/Ke and the successive stationary transits of the nodes did not help much, at 18º, 9º and 0º Leo/Aquarius, in 1784, and 21º Capricorn/Cancer in 1785.

 

Mercury is lord of H11 (paper money), and is combust and placed with the Moon in the same axis of H9/H3, exactly afflicted by the nodes.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

On 1/28/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

 

 

 

News & Commentary

 

The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of Confederation

January 26, 2007

 

by Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman.

The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected.

Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history.

Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find honest work.

Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the difficulties in perspective, he said the United States did not get its constitution until 1789.

Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789. We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR.

And thanks for playing our game.Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't someone who holds himself qualified to be a U.S. senator know that what we call " the Constitution " was really America's second constitution? [*] [*]This means that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July 9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was allowed. " President " here meant precisely president of the United States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers of this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice President of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice President presides as President of the Senate. There was no executive branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors.

 

 

 

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783.

 

The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until " the Constitution " displaced them in 1789. The process by which the Articles were scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist " Federal Farmer " (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8, 1787.

 

 

Quote "A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed." unquote [Emphasis added.]

 

 

Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were meant to suggest that what took place in the United States during that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another. Quite the contrary.

 

 

Freed from Central Coercion

 

How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill Jensen writes, " Americans fought against and freed themselves from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation were written, although there were Americans who wished to do so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the democratization of American society by the destruction of the coercive authority of Great Britain and the establishment of actual local self-government within the separate states under the Articles of Confederation. "

 

 

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax or to erect trade barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its potential for de facto quasi-monarchization.

 

 

People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane, with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded. The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. " The steps in the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and the purpose was clear, " Jensen writes.

 

 

Of course there was slavery, which contradicted the philosophy espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved against it. " Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed some form of legislation to stop the slave trade, " Jensen writes. New England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-slavery societies flourished.

 

 

What about the economies of the states? We can infer much from the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles for a new constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire. (But then neither was the consolidated national system after 1789. The first economic action of the first Congress under the Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.)

 

Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans, trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely agrarian society, Jensen writes, " the dominant note was sounded by American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport towns. . . . Their power was born of place, position, and fortune. They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of the whole people, the state, and the nation. " (Hence, the bad name " capitalism " has for many people.)

 

 

Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on what kind of government intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about shipping. Part of the impetus toward a strong central government was business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part regulatory cartel.

 

 

Regional Differences

 

There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated there. The South had little manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little interest in restrictions on foreign carriers

[Guest guest]

Hi Jorge, The 1784-85 slump was a classic instance of market behavior in the aftermath of hyper-inflationary state sponsored money & credit increases. The famous expression in American history: "Ain't worth a Continental", wasn't referring to a poor performance on the battlefield by the patriot soldier, but to the collapse of the Continental currency on the eve of Confederation, because of desperate financing measures enacted by the States to prosecute the Revolutionary War. By 1780 the paper emissions were virtually stopped, and so the economy in due course crashed on the precipitate droping of the rate of increase of the currency. Like taking the drugs supply away from the addict. Or, for another similar instance of the consequences of reckless government financing, just consider President Bush's financing measures for the U.S. WARS in Afghanistan,

in Iraq and in any other nation in the region that may have been invaded by the U.S. while I was sleeping last night. The consequences to the currency of such recklessness will show its full force when President Bush is retired to his ranch in Texas, after January 2009. The grim reaper will come for the American Dollar. So for sure, we "ain't seen nothin' yet" as regards just how bad it may get on the downside for the once mighty Dollar. P.S. "CONTINENTAL" here, comes from the organizational title of the United Colonies, which complete title has been seldom referred to in history books. The complete title, thus: quote "American Association of the Continental Congress", unquote, and sometimes mentioned by its abridged title: "Continental Association". The Association was united under the "Articles of Association", signed in Congress, Philadelphia, on October 20

and 22, 1774. Estimated time at completion of the signing on the 22nd, shortly after 1:00 p.m. These ARTICLES were later ratified on various dates in each Colony through August 1775. Cheers, JOHN Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear John, Thanks for this article. It seems that too much central authority does not help much in a healthy

development of any country. State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money The US rectified chart was in Mo/Me and Mo/Ke and the successive stationary transits of the nodes did not help much, at 18º, 9º and 0º Leo/Aquarius, in 1784, and 21º Capricorn/Cancer in 1785. Mercury is lord of H11 (paper money), and is combust and placed with the Moon in the same axis of H9/H3, exactly afflicted by the nodes. Best wishes, Jorge On 1/28/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 >

wrote: News & Commentary The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of Confederation January 26, 2007 by Sheldon Richman Sheldon Richman is the editor of

The Freeman. The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected. Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history. Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find honest work. Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the difficulties in perspective, he said the United States

did not get its constitution until 1789. Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789. We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR. And thanks for playing our game.Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't someone who holds himself qualified to be a U.S. senator know that what we call "the Constitution" was really America's second constitution? [*] [*]This means that George Washington wasn't

really the first president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July 9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was allowed. "President" here meant precisely president of the United States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers of this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice President of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice President presides as President of the Senate. There was no executive

branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors. The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783. The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until "the Constitution" displaced them in 1789. The process by which the Articles were

scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist "Federal Farmer" (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8, 1787. Quote "A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to

regulate trade was proposed." unquote [Emphasis added.] Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were meant to suggest that what took place in the United States during that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another. Quite the contrary. Freed from Central Coercion How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill Jensen writes, "Americans fought against and freed themselves from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation were written, although there were Americans who wished to do so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the democratization of American society by the destruction of the coercive authority of Great Britain and the establishment of actual local self-government within the separate states under the Articles of Confederation." Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax or to erect trade

barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its potential for de facto quasi-monarchization. People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane, with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded. The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. "The steps in the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and the purpose was clear," Jensen

writes. Of course there was slavery, which contradicted the philosophy espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved against it. "Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed some form of legislation to stop the slave trade," Jensen writes. New England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-slavery societies flourished. What about the economies of the states? We can infer much from the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles

for a new constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire. (But then neither was the consolidated national system after 1789. The first economic action of the first Congress under the Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.) Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans, trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely agrarian society, Jensen writes, "the dominant note was sounded by American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport towns. . . .

Their power was born of place, position, and fortune. They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of the whole people, the state, and the nation." (Hence, the bad name "capitalism" has for many people.) Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on what kind of government intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about shipping. Part of the impetus

toward a strong central government was business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part regulatory cartel. Regional Differences There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated there. The South had little

manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little interest in restrictions on foreign carriers. State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money , government banking policies, and other intervention. But the crises were not extraordinary. As Jensen summarizes, "There is nothing in the knowable facts to support the ancient myth of idle ships, stagnant commerce, and bankrupt merchants in the new nation. As long as ago as 1912, Edward

Channing demonstrated with adequate evidence that despite the commercial depression, American commerce expanded rapidly after 1783, and that by 1790 the United States had far outstripped the colonies of a few short years before." Despite the heavy intervention, the states still had virtually an unprecedented degree of economic freedom. A person could easily get a plot of land and take care of his family by farming. There was no distant overbearing central bureaucracy to worry about. Contact with government was minimal. Imagine what the economic growth and the justice of income patterns would have been had the states practiced laissez faire! Thus contrary to Sen. Graham, pre-1789 America had a constitution, almost no central government, prosperity, and peace. Not too shabby. The reasons for junking the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution are worthy of study but too big a topic for today. Suffice it say, as Jensen did, that "the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of 1787 were quite a different set of men from those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776." http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1065 Get your own web address.Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

Finding fabulous fares is fun.Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.

[Guest guest]

Dear Jorge, John and list members,

 

This is a very interesting test to go all the way back to events at

the time of the countries founding.

 

The SAMVA USA chart shows clearly a difficult time in the life of the

country with Mo/Ra period operating from 31 August 1783 to 1 March

1785 and Mo/Ju thereafter.

 

The transits were also difficult. During early 1784, Rahu went

stationary at 18° 30 Aquarius H8 MEP with Ketu afflicting H2. At that

time, transit Rahu was under the close aspect of natal Ketu at 17°

47' Libra H4 and Ketu was likewise under the aspect of natal Rahu in

H10.

 

The above combination suggests a very difficult period. Moreover, it

is reminicsent of the transit to natal conjunction of the nodes from

September to December 1929, which coincided with the start of the

Rahu-Ketu period on 1 October 1929. The Great Depression of the 1930s

began at that time. In other words, we would expect a serious

economic situation to have emerged in 1784.

 

Other transits were also contributing to the difficulty. In the

summer of 1784, Jupiter also went stationary in H8 under this

natal aspect of Ketu. Jupiter then went retrograde and again fell

under this aspect in early 1785. Jupiter then moved into Pisces H9

and into aspect of its own placement at 5° Scorpio H5 and thereafter

aspected L10 Mars at 10° Scorpio before stationing on H9 MEP later in

1785. In late 1784 and early 1785, a stationary transit Rahu at 0°

Aquarius fell under the aspect of natal L8 Saturn at 27° Scorpio H5

and from May to September 1785 it became stationary conjunct natal L2

Sun H7, placing a strain on the currency and wealth. Finally, transit

L8 Saturn was conjunct L3 Mercury in H7 for much of 1785, bringing

difficulty for entrepreneurial activity.

 

In conclusion, the transit and period combination in the SAMVA USA

chart is reminiscent of the transit and period combination at the

outset of the Great Depression of the 1930. It clearly suggests a

difficult time during these two years, including depressed economic

conditions.

 

Best wishes,

 

Thor

 

 

SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

>

> Hi Jorge,

>

> The 1784-85 slump was a classic instance of market behavior in

the aftermath of hyper-inflationary state sponsored money & credit

increases.

>

> The famous expression in American history: " Ain't worth a

Continental " , wasn't referring to a poor performance on the

battlefield by the patriot soldier, but to the collapse of the

Continental currency on the eve of Confederation, because of

desperate financing measures enacted by the States to prosecute the

Revolutionary War. By 1780 the paper emissions were virtually

stopped, and so the economy in due course crashed on the precipitate

droping of the rate of increase of the currency. Like taking the

drugs supply away from the addict.

>

> Or, for another similar instance of the consequences of reckless

government financing, just consider President Bush's financing

measures for the U.S. WARS in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in any other

nation in the region that may have been invaded by the U.S. while I

was sleeping last night. The consequences to the currency of such

recklessness will show its full force when President Bush is retired

to his ranch in Texas, after January 2009. The grim reaper will come

for the American Dollar. So for sure, we " ain't seen nothin' yet " as

regards just how bad it may get on the downside for the once mighty

Dollar.

>

> P.S.

>

> " CONTINENTAL " here, comes from the organizational title of the

United Colonies, which complete title has been seldom referred to in

history books. The complete title, thus: quote " American Association

of the Continental Congress " , unquote, and sometimes mentioned by its

abridged title: " Continental Association " . The Association was united

under the " Articles of Association " , signed in Congress,

Philadelphia, on October 20 and 22, 1774. Estimated time at

completion of the signing on the 22nd, shortly after 1:00 p.m.

These ARTICLES were later ratified on various dates in each Colony

through August 1775.

>

> Cheers,

>

> JOHN

>

>

>

> Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote:

> Dear John,

>

> Thanks for this article. It seems that too much central authority

does not help much in a healthy development of any country.

>

> State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in

in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money

>

> The US rectified chart was in Mo/Me and Mo/Ke and the successive

stationary transits of the nodes did not help much, at 18º, 9º and 0º

Leo/Aquarius, in 1784, and 21º Capricorn/Cancer in 1785.

>

> Mercury is lord of H11 (paper money), and is combust and placed

with the Moon in the same axis of H9/H3, exactly afflicted by the

nodes.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Jorge

>

>

> On 1/28/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

> News & Commentary The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of

Confederation January 26, 2007

>

> by Sheldon Richman

>

>

>

> Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman.

>

>

>

> The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a

person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and

a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected.

>

>

>

> Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history.

>

>

>

> Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find

honest work.

>

>

>

> Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address,

Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the

difficulties in perspective, he said the United States did not get

its constitution until 1789.

>

>

>

> Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize

you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION:

A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789.

We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-

FEDERALISTS WERE FOR. And thanks for playing our game.

>

> Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about

the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed

under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't

someone who holds himself qualified to be a U.S. senator know that

what we call " the Constitution " was really America's second

constitution? [*]

>

> [*]This means that George Washington wasn't really the first

president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington

of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson

of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July

9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental

Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the

Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the

ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July

10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November

3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was

allowed. " President " here meant precisely president of the United

States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers of

this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice President

of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice

President presides as President of the Senate. There

> was no executive branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true

executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors.

>

>

> The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second

Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after

confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before

Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a

half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were

signed on September 3, 1783.

>

>

>

> The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until " the

Constitution " displaced them in 1789. The process by which the

Articles were scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an

entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist " Federal

Farmer " (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8,

1787.

>

>

> Quote " A general convention for mere commercial purposes was

moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's

attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system;

and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably

no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of

destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one

consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention,

therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was

proposed. " unquote [Emphasis added.]

>

> Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to

endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were

meant to suggest that what took place in the United States during

that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that

is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war

or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another.

Quite the contrary.

>

> Freed from Central Coercion

>

> How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill

Jensen writes, " Americans fought against and freed themselves

from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They

did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation

were written, although there were Americans who wished to do

so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the

democratization of American society by the destruction of the

coercive authority of Great Britain and the establishment of actual

local self-government within the separate states under the Articles

of Confederation. "

>

> Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax

or to erect trade barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition

the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its

potential for de facto quasi-monarchization.

>

> People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism

about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane,

with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some

cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished

over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with

library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded.

The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. " The steps in

the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of

church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and

the purpose was clear, " Jensen writes.

>

> Of course there was slavery, which contradicted the philosophy

espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved

against it. " Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions

or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a

decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed

some form of legislation to stop the slave trade, " Jensen writes. New

England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-

slavery societies flourished.

>

> What about the economies of the states? We can infer much from

the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles for a new

constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central

government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a

description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a

hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire.

(But then neither was the consolidated national system after 1789.

The first economic action of the first Congress under the

Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.)

>

> Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the

states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans,

trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely

agrarian society, Jensen writes, " the dominant note was sounded by

American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport

towns. . . . Their power was born of place, position, and fortune.

They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in

direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They

influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the

ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of

the whole people, the state, and the nation. " (Hence, the bad

name " capitalism " has for many people.)

>

> Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on what kind of government

intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's

because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but

wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while

manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about

shipping. Part of the impetus toward a strong central government was

business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since

individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more

stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could

capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its

barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part

regulatory cartel.

>

> Regional Differences

>

> There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in

the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated there. The

South had little manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign

goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners

who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade

policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern

farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little

interest in restrictions on foreign carriers.

>

> State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in

in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money , government banking policies,

and other intervention. But the crises were not extraordinary. As

Jensen summarizes, " There is nothing in the knowable facts to support

the ancient myth of idle ships, stagnant commerce, and bankrupt

merchants in the new nation. As long as ago as 1912, Edward Channing

demonstrated with adequate evidence that despite the commercial

depression, American commerce expanded rapidly after 1783, and that

by 1790 the United States had far outstripped the colonies of a few

short years before. "

>

> Despite the heavy intervention, the states still had virtually an

unprecedented degree of economic freedom. A person could easily get a

plot of land and take care of his family by farming. There was no

distant overbearing central bureaucracy to worry about. Contact with

government was minimal. Imagine what the economic growth and the

justice of income patterns would have been had the states practiced

laissez faire!

>

> Thus contrary to Sen. Graham, pre-1789 America had a

constitution, almost no central government, prosperity, and peace.

Not too shabby.

>

> The reasons for junking the Articles of Confederation for the

Constitution are worthy of study but too big a topic for today.

Suffice it say, as Jensen did, that " the founding fathers who wrote

the Constitution of 1787 were quite a different set of men from those

who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. "

>

> http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1065

>

>

>

>

>

> Get your own web address.

> Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

>

>

>

 

> Finding fabulous fares is fun.

> Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find

flight and hotel bargains.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

 

Thanks for clarifying it.

 

It was that entity, the " Continental Association " born in October 1774, that decided to become INDEPENDENT on July 2, 1776. The gestation period was the time in between, still in the womb of Mother England.

 

July 2, 1776, was the " seed " moment. Everything else afterwards is the development of that SEED.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

On 1/29/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

 

 

Hi Jorge,

 

The 1784-85 slump was a classic instance of market behavior in the aftermath of hyper-inflationary state sponsored money & credit increases.

 

The famous expression in American history: " Ain't worth a Continental " , wasn't referring to a poor performance on the battlefield by the patriot soldier, but to the collapse of the Continental currency on the eve of Confederation, because of desperate financing measures enacted by the States to prosecute the Revolutionary War. By 1780 the paper emissions were virtually stopped, and so the economy in due course crashed on the precipitate droping of the rate of increase of the currency. Like taking the drugs supply away from the addict.

 

 

Or, for another similar instance of the consequences of reckless government financing, just consider President Bush's financing measures for the U.S. WARS in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in any other nation in the region that may have been invaded by the U.S. while I was sleeping last night. The consequences to the currency of such recklessness will show its full force when President Bush is retired to his ranch in Texas, after January 2009. The grim reaper will come for the American Dollar. So for sure, we " ain't seen nothin' yet " as regards just how bad it may get on the downside for the once mighty Dollar.

 

 

P.S.

 

" CONTINENTAL " here, comes from the organizational title of the United Colonies, which complete title has been seldom referred to in history books. The complete title, thus: quote " American Association of the Continental Congress " , unquote, and sometimes mentioned by its abridged title: " Continental Association " . The Association was united under the " Articles of Association " , signed in Congress, Philadelphia, on October 20 and 22, 1774. Estimated time at completion of the signing on the 22nd, shortly after 1:00 p.m. These ARTICLES were later ratified on various dates in each Colony through August 1775.

 

Cheers,

 

JOHN

 

 

Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote:

 

 

 

Dear John,

 

Thanks for this article. It seems that too much central authority does not help much in a healthy development of any country.

 

State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money

 

 

The US rectified chart was in Mo/Me and

Mo/Ke and the successive stationary transits of the nodes did not help much, at 18º, 9º and 0º Leo/Aquarius, in 1784, and 21º Capricorn/Cancer in 1785.

 

Mercury is lord of H11 (paper money), and is combust and placed with the Moon in the same axis of H9/H3, exactly afflicted by the nodes.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

On 1/28/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776

> wrote:

 

 

News & Commentary

 

The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of Confederation

January 26, 2007

 

by Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman.

The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected.

Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history.

Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find honest work.

Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the difficulties in perspective, he said the United States did not get its constitution until 1789.

Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789. We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR. And thanks for playing our game.Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't someone who holds himself qualified to be a U.S. senator know that what we call " the Constitution " was really America's second constitution? [*] [*]This means that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July 9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was allowed. " President " here meant precisely president of the United States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers of this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice President of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice President presides as President of the Senate. There was no executive branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors.

 

 

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783.

The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until " the Constitution " displaced them in 1789. The process by which the Articles were scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist " Federal Farmer " (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8, 1787.

 

 

Quote " A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed. " unquote [Emphasis added.]

 

Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were meant to suggest that what took place in the United States during that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another. Quite the contrary.

 

Freed from Central Coercion

 

How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill Jensen writes, " Americans fought against and freed themselves from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation were written, although there were Americans who wished to do so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the democratization of American society by the destruction of the coercive authority of Great Britain and the establishment of actual local self-government within the separate states under the Articles of Confederation. "

 

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax or to erect trade barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its potential for de facto quasi-monarchization.

 

People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane, with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded. The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. " The steps in the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and the purpose was clear, " Jensen writes.

 

Of course there was slavery, which contradicted the philosophy espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved against it. " Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed some form of legislation to stop the slave trade, " Jensen writes. New England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-slavery societies flourished.

 

What about the economies of the states? We can infer much from the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles for a new constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire. (But then neither was the consolidated national system after 1789. The first economic action of the first Congress under the Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.)

 

Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans, trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely agrarian society, Jensen writes, " the dominant note was sounded by American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport towns. . . . Their power was born of place, position, and fortune. They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of the whole people, the state, and the nation. " (Hence, the bad name " capitalism " has for many people.)

 

Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on what kind of government intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about shipping. Part of the impetus toward a strong central government was business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part regulatory cartel.

 

Regional Differences

 

There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated there. The South had little manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little interest in restrictions on foreign carriers.

 

State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money , government banking policies, and other intervention. But the crises were not extraordinary. As Jensen summarizes, " There is nothing in the knowable facts to support the ancient myth of idle ships, stagnant commerce, and bankrupt merchants in the new nation. As long as ago as 1912, Edward Channing demonstrated with adequate evidence that despite the commercial depression, American commerce expanded rapidly after 1783, and that by 1790 the United States had far outstripped the colonies of a few short years before. "

 

Despite the heavy intervention, the states still had virtually an unprecedented degree of economic freedom. A person could easily get a plot of land and take care of his family by farming. There was no distant overbearing central bureaucracy to worry about. Contact with government was minimal. Imagine what the economic growth and the justice of income patterns would have been had the states practiced laissez faire!

 

Thus contrary to Sen. Graham, pre-1789 America had a constitution, almost no central government, prosperity, and peace. Not too shabby.

 

The reasons for junking the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution are worthy of study but too big a topic for today. Suffice it say, as Jensen did, that " the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of 1787 were quite a different set of men from those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. "

 

http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1065

 

 

 

 

 

Get your own web address.Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding fabulous fares is fun.

Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.