Jedi Master Spock wrote:SpaceWizard wrote:Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
SpaceWizard, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggestions like this. They're fairly inflammatory.
Also, I will be splitting this into "Other." It's really not about Star Trek and Star Wars at this point.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.
If I may interject on the topic you are discussing:
Thomas Paine seems to be proposing America as a
nation in the very same sense that Britain is a
nation:
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine wrote:If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here, he is comparing a congress to a king.
Common Sense wrote:It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
Here, he is saying that the English seem to think that the colonies are
not part of a coherent whole. This is the only passage I could find where he is describing your position.
Common Sense wrote:Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.
These "kingdoms," though "thickly planted," are typically larger than the colonies Paine is referring to as "America."1
Common Sense wrote:But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
Here, again, we refer to the question of who will be the "king of America" - if we are to make of America a nation, of course.
Benjamin Franklin:
Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.
In speaking to the constitutional convention, he said this:
We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
And this:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
He seemed to think that a permanent union was what they were attempting to form:
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
I find it odd that you suggest looking at the Federalist Papers, since they were an argument for a strong central government. First paragraph of No. 9, penned by Hamilton:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.
The paper goes on to say that the vaunted "confederate republic" doesn't seem to exist:
A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.
The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia." Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
Madison closed No. 10, which shared a title, with this commentary:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
The Federalist papers were, by and large, an argument
against the Articles of Confederation, demanding a much stronger government and treatment of the United States as a single country rather than a collective of small countries bound into a league.
Sometimes referred to as the "anti-Federalist papers" are a range of similar documents offered
against ratifying the then-new constitution. There existed at the very start of American history not a unified opinion that states were and should be individual sovereign nations, but instead tension between those who desired a stronger and those who desired a weaker federal government.
I'm afraid that above, simply shows a lack of comprehension to the most
basic original context of the states and their interactions between them.
A "stronger government" means NOTHING, if it's between
separate soveregn nations-- which the states always were; for as long as they
remain sovereign nations, then all power can only be
delegated to that general government-- not
surrendered to it as a supreme sovereign nation
over them.
From its first founding, sovereign American government has always been thus based on the principles enumerated by Vattel in
The Law of Nations-- particularly BooK I, Chater I:
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body.
§ 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.
The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
And so the "federal republic" among the states, recognized, preserved and maintained the national sovereignty of each via its People-- not its
government; for its government, state or faderal,
had no sovereignty: only the
People did, and they simply
delegated authority to their state and federal government as the People's
underlings and
servants.
And for that reason, the People of each state, being the ruling sovereigns of their respective nation, could simply could simply override and
veto anything the government did; as the Declaration of Independence states:(abridged some):
"We hold that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: that to secure these rights, governments are established among men, deriving their just powers by consent of the governed; that whenever governments become destructive to these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and elect new government..."
This clearly shows that the
People are the supreme sovereigns of the indivdual state, which makes it a
sovereign nation by definition-- particularly as defined by the Law of Nations:
§ 4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.
And the states were founded and and internationally recognized as free, sovereign and independent-- i.e.
sovereign nations.
As shown, the individual states
never "passed under the domination of another," simply by uniting against Great Britain for their independence-- that much was expressly drawn in the various papers, that their intent was to form
individual sovereign nations.
As Vattel continues:
§ 5. States bound by unequal alliance.
We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.
The conditions of those unequal alliances may be infinitely varied, But whatever they are, provided the inferior ally reserve to itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the law of nations.
§ 6. Or by treaties of protection.
Consequently a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, — that state, I say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among the sovereigns who acknowledge no other law than that of nations.
And so, we see that the states never ceased to be anything but sovereign nations, simply by pacting with other states to achieve and
maintain their common defense and sovereignty.
Naturally, such a claim would be obtuse beyond measure-- but it's the pointy-headed nonsense that Lincoln described as American history.
Consider his lies from his July 4, 1861
War Address to Congress:
Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution – no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in, and by, the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "Free and Independent States"; but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union; but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show.
This is an outright LIE-- as the express statements of the Declaration itself prove beyond any doubt:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Clearly, they sought for each state to be a sovereign nation unto itself-- NOT to form a single nation to which they would be subordinate states, as Vattel describes in section 11 above.
Nor was there any
need to "declare their independence of one another, or of the Union," as Lincoln waffles above; for indeed no such dependence either existed in a national sense-- or indeed could exist, since this
already existed with regard to Great Britain--while this "union" was obviously therefore
less than a national association among them... and was
never, conversely to Lincoln's claim, made otherwise: there it is, plain as day, big as life.
And consider how Lincoln has no shame:
The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
The Articles of Confederation are where he puts his whole size-16 foot in his mouth, for they expressly contain the following in Article II:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Note the word "retains" above-- i.e. they already
had it, as far as they were concerned; and also note the term "delegates," as I also cover above regarding how the delegation of sovereign powers does NOT connote a surrender of sovereignty-- any more than any other treaty.
Thus this proves that Lincoln simply cherry-picked whatever he pleased, simply to commit an illegal and international coup d'etat among sovereign nations, no different from Saddam Hussein's invasion and conquest of Kuwait.
And like all corrupt empires, this has been force-fed into its people ever since, from snot-nosed youth onward-- via the Pledge of A-lie-gance, claiming that the USA is "one nation, indivisible."
But this is where they trip themselves up: for nations are
already "indivisible" by DEFINITION.
Thus obviously the term "indivisible" is gratuitously placed in order to revise history, and pre-emptively indoctrinate the people to reject the notion in knee-jerk fashion so that they'll never get wise-- i.e. they doth protest too much, to believe the protesting!
Fortunately, maybe the internet will change things, by giving voice to jerks like me to bypass jerks like those in the media, academia and government; already the work is starting to turn, as Libertarians are beginning to get the clue about actual history.
Unfortunately, however, they STILL believe that the Union was founded as a single nation; but as soon as they get with it, maybe Ron Paul and friends can actually make some
progress overthrowing this rotten empire which pretends to be free, constitutionally-limited republic, simply because idiots can vote-- but not wield sovereign power either in the Union
or the state.
Ain't gonna happen-- politics just don't work that way, and neither does the Constiution.