I talked about immigration because my counter argument that said we "had a de facto gov't for 140 years" is wrong, because the federal gov't could deport immigrants in 1798. As for the act of 1871...
Ah yes, the Reconstruction Era, the portion of American history I'm the most fuzzy about. I hope you understand the context of the law, which replaced state militia with federal troops due to Klan (yes, the Ku Klux Klan) terrorist attacks all over the South. Now, I'm all for one to say that "one who gives liberty for safety deserves neither", but since the US was just in a state of war, and were effectively occupying and rebuilding the South, I think that self-evident truth can be ignored. The Federal gov't HAD to step up, because if they didn't, the US could have a second Civil War. And you want to know another reason they enacted this law? To enforce the 14th amendment. you know, the one that said that blacks weren't 3/5ths of a person. Now, this Act has recieved some changes, and I'm wondering if I even have the right Act (is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871). In 1963, an amendment was added that made it possible for you to accuse the gov't an any gov't members who you believe stepped on your rights, and sue them. I don't know about you, but this act seems to actually make a lick of sense (minus the suspension of habeas corpus in a few Southern counties, though that was in a state of war, so that was understandable...I guess).
Hm, let's keep looking at more Acts in 1871. There was an Act that made DC a seperate region. Doubt that is the act in question. let's look at some more things. Huh, some articles from libertarian sites are actually saying this IS the law in question. Well, let's look more into what they say. Hm...changing the phrase from "Constitution for the United States of America" to "Constitution of the United States of America". Seems awfully arbitrary. I mean, the meaning is certainly different, but gov'ts change and modify all the time. Now, the creation of a region of "Washington DC" can certainly seem off-putting, but if you think about it, it makes sense. The capitol isn't with a specific state (if it was, it'd be a political shit storm of "favorites"), and it was quickly becoming both a city AND a capitol. This isn't a conspiracy, this is common sense. An, politically, Washington (the city, not the capital) isn't even that powerful. In fact, recently their mayor was arrested for joining a group of Occupy Protesters. Now, I alo need to ask what you use for your word of "corporate". When I hear corporate, I think something dealing with those Wall Street fatcats, bathing in pools of cash (worth the weight). But the dictionary definition is a bit more clear, and I would admit that not only is Washington corporate, it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. You see, corporation means "group that forms a single entity, that is recognized by law". It could also mean (and I think this one is the case) a group of people who run a city, county, or nation. So do we want a group of people running this nation? Well, I'd like them not to be corrupt, but I don't see much more of an alternative. After all, a group of people running a nation sounds an awful lot like representive democracy to me, and since that is what the US is, that makes sense. I don't seem to understand what is the issue...
Here's another article that has my same stance, albeit better articulated (it's late :/):
http://www.freedomforceinternational.or ... orporation