JoelHenderson
06-04-2009, 11:21 PM
The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Paris Peace Treaty all recognized the status of each state as a popularly sovereign nation; likewise, the People retained this sovereignty under the Constitution.
It took over a generation for the Republicans to argue that the Union was a single nation, rather than a federal republic of nations; these started with Jackson, and ended with Lincoln. To date, their legal arguments have been unilaterally rejected as wholly false.
However some still try to claim that the United States is a single nation. In America's Constitution, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar writes the following:
"Thus in the great debate of the 1860's both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln got some things right and some things wrong, but Lincoln was right when it counted. Contrary to what Lincoln said, it is doubtful that a new indivisible nation—as opposed to thirteen original nation-states in a classic confederacy—sprang into existence in July 1776...the United States did not become an indivisible nation prohibiting unilateral state secession—the crux of the Gettysburg contest—until 1788. Lincoln also stumbled in claiming that none of the thirteen original states had ever been sovereign."
[Amar's America's Constitution, pp. 38-39]
Here, Amar claims that the states became a single nation via the Constitution, arguing that "In dramatic contrast to Article VII--whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 --Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence." (David C. Baur Lecture: "Abraham Lincoln And The American Union," by Akhil Reed Amar).
Here, Amar implies that the states could be "bound" by force, rather than voluntarily by agreement; however no state ever consented to such a premise: on the contrary, every state retained its sovereignty by ratifying only under the premises of Federalist 39, i.e. that the Union was not one nation via the Constitution, but "so many independent states".
Contrary to Amar's claims, entirely consistent with sovereignty, for a state to be bound on a purely volutnary basis, while retaining its independent status as a sovereign nation: in fact this is the very definition of a "federal republic" according to the accepted International Law of the era.
By law, every state was a sovereign nation unto itself: and this never changed.
As a result, Lincoln and the Republicans were no different from any other imperialist who claimed false national authority over a sovereign nation, in order to conquer it and create an empire, without a declaration of war, or admitting imperialism: examples include Saddam Hussein in conquering Kuwait, or Adolph Hitler in conquering Austria. Therefore the United States is no different from these empires in its formative policy.
It took over a generation for the Republicans to argue that the Union was a single nation, rather than a federal republic of nations; these started with Jackson, and ended with Lincoln. To date, their legal arguments have been unilaterally rejected as wholly false.
However some still try to claim that the United States is a single nation. In America's Constitution, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar writes the following:
"Thus in the great debate of the 1860's both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln got some things right and some things wrong, but Lincoln was right when it counted. Contrary to what Lincoln said, it is doubtful that a new indivisible nation—as opposed to thirteen original nation-states in a classic confederacy—sprang into existence in July 1776...the United States did not become an indivisible nation prohibiting unilateral state secession—the crux of the Gettysburg contest—until 1788. Lincoln also stumbled in claiming that none of the thirteen original states had ever been sovereign."
[Amar's America's Constitution, pp. 38-39]
Here, Amar claims that the states became a single nation via the Constitution, arguing that "In dramatic contrast to Article VII--whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 --Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence." (David C. Baur Lecture: "Abraham Lincoln And The American Union," by Akhil Reed Amar).
Here, Amar implies that the states could be "bound" by force, rather than voluntarily by agreement; however no state ever consented to such a premise: on the contrary, every state retained its sovereignty by ratifying only under the premises of Federalist 39, i.e. that the Union was not one nation via the Constitution, but "so many independent states".
Contrary to Amar's claims, entirely consistent with sovereignty, for a state to be bound on a purely volutnary basis, while retaining its independent status as a sovereign nation: in fact this is the very definition of a "federal republic" according to the accepted International Law of the era.
By law, every state was a sovereign nation unto itself: and this never changed.
As a result, Lincoln and the Republicans were no different from any other imperialist who claimed false national authority over a sovereign nation, in order to conquer it and create an empire, without a declaration of war, or admitting imperialism: examples include Saddam Hussein in conquering Kuwait, or Adolph Hitler in conquering Austria. Therefore the United States is no different from these empires in its formative policy.