It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Union - Why the United States is not a country and how the civil war never happened.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I wrote this today... don't know why. First, to clear up definitions:


Union: 2. United States: the United States of America



Confederate States of America: States that seceded: the confederation of the 11 southern states that seceded from the United States [Union] in 1861



State: 2. country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government


“I want you to go on to picture the enlightenment or ignorance of our human conditions somewhat as follows. Imagine a land where each sovereign country is part of a larger union."


"I see."


"Imagine further that the name of the union is "The United States" and a framework for the operation of the union was written in a constitution, to be followed by elected officials of the union, for the benefit of it's member countries."


"An appropriate name for a union."


"Now imagine that the original framework of this union had been thrown out and replaced by a second constitution created for the purpose of allowing it to be ignored and manipulated by interpretation. Envision that the discrete political State entities were coerced by legislation and Union deceat into giving up many of their rights as members of this union."


"It is plausable."


"It would surely result in the union growing around the individual member nations, gaining control over the political entities that comprise the union. It would also result in a centralation of power, would it not?"


"It would. Certainly the States would no longer be sovereign."


"Correct, the countries would have their liberties and sovereignity stripped away by the higher political body, the Union. Do you think that the member countries would stand to have sovereignity taken away, only to find that they have come under almost complete control of the Union?"


"Certainly, many of the countries would secede from this Union."


"They would. The sovereign countries would surely secede from the union, forming their own political alliance - no longer a part of the imposing union. They would create a union that is called the Confederate States of America, opposed to the union called the United States of America. The Confederate States of America would also draft their own constitution and become a politically equal entity to the United States of America, both being composed of sovereign States that form a political union."


"Then it is without doubt that the larger union, the United States of America would wage war against the Confederate States of America in an attempt to assimilate the countries that it has lost, to centralize power."


"It is without doubt, if control and centralization of power is the goal."


"Suppose that the larger union won the war and reassimilated the opposing states. It would be only a matter of time before the United States of America would assimilate more countries under its central, soverignity destroying government."


"One would be bound to think so."


"The Union, in an effort to take power from each country it had incorporated into itself would create Federal agencies such as departments to standardize education, energy, currency, taxes, and laws that override the laws of the individual states and the people. The union would use propaganda to influence and guide its citizens as it saw fit. It would no longer be a union for the people, but a union for something else. This union would be the driving force behind another union, a much larger union, introduced as the United Nations.


"An odd notion. Surely a peaceful union is not created as such. Would not this union, and those driving it, attempt to eventually create a union of all countries with a complete centralization of power?"


"That is the conclusion one would obviously reach. The Union is the self-organizing ideal of power centralization, invariably carried on by those with the means."


"I See."




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
A Socratic dialogue on states' rights. How Faulknerian!

Please tell me you hail from south of the Mason-Dixon line. One dare not hope for Mississippi.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Lol, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I'm all for states' rights on most things, but I understand and agree why the "articles of confederation [and perpetual union...]" are now called the "US Constitution."

Keep going with this dialogue of yours, it was entertaining. After all, lots of people say the American Revolution didn't really end until 1865 at Appomattox.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


You didn't explain why the Civil War never happened. How come it never happened? Do you have proof?

The United States is a country. The federal government is located in Washington D.C., an entity separate from any states, because it was decided that the nation's capital should not be in any one state. Could there be something devious to this? Possible. But many people like it that way. It's not something you see all around the world.

As for the states basically being countries in a union, they're actually states, or administrative divisions inside a country, i.e. the United States.

Every country around the world has administrative divisions. The United States is no different. The "states" are administrative divisions. Perhaps they have more individual powers than most administrative divisions around the world. I don't know, that would have to be researched. But they aren't individual countries making up a union, they're divisions making up a country.

I do believe federal agencies, such as the department of education and others were set up to centralize power. I agree with you on that. But the United States is a country and the Civil War did happen.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
A Socratic dialogue on states' rights. How Faulknerian!

Please tell me you hail from south of the Mason-Dixon line. One dare not hope for Mississippi.


I didn't offer that original post but... I couldn't help but note how regionally bigotted your reply was. Do you stereotype people from other nations in the same way? How about gender?

Yes, I am from very South of that line you refer to... should I now follow your lead and make an equally ignorant reply?


...

[edit on 20-12-2007 by redoubt]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Unfortunately your "discussion" builds straw men atop straw men.

1) "throwing away" one constitution for another. The Articles of Confederation were never a Constitution. Furthermore, the new constitution was not fully ratified until the same year that the Articles of Confederation were set to expire - 1790.

2) There was no coercion or deceit involved in the adoption of the current Constitution. it was drafted by delegates chosen by the states, and brought to each state for vote and ratification. That is, each state as a n individual entity was presented with the opportunity to vote yes or no or even ask for changes before a vote. Each one of them voted in favor of the new constitution.

3) Of the states that were seceded, only four of them were states at the time of the rollover from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The rest of them joined the United States after this event, thereby agreeing explicitly to recognize the United States constitution as the overarching law of the land, with all that entailed.

4) The confederate states did not secede for a sanitized political term such as "State sovereignty." The confederate states seceded in order to preserve the practice of slavery which provided the backbone of their economies. Paint it any way you like, but no entity, "sovereign state" or no has any right to allow some of its population to treat others in the population as if they were livestock.

5) The later "assimilations" of other states occurred with the full consent of the state governments, granted to them by the people thus governed, with one possible exception, that being the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

6) A peaceful union was indeed created as such, and it was created with the consent, and resultant votes, of the people thus governed. That some disagree with the ideas put forth does not change the fact that their opinion lost to the majority opinion on these matters. Perhaps those people who had previously supported the idea of having a right to human livestock are disappointed in the democratic process, but it seems most others are quite happy with it.

7) Yes, the United States has a centralized government. The territory is too vast and the population too large for a workable state-by-state governance. It is not through any sinister motive, but one of practicality and efficiency, which is recognized by all fifty states that make up the union, who have unanimously chosen to accept and maintain this way of working things.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You didn't explain why the Civil War never happened. How come it never happened? Do you have proof?


It never happened because it was a war between two political unions on a continent, not a war between opposing sides located within one country.




The United States is a country.

The United states is a union that has been growing ever since it was established. Originally having 13 states, it now has 50, with the last State being admitted to the Union from posession known as the Hawaii Territory established on July 7, 1898.

from wiki:


The Territories of the United States may be incorporated (part of the United States proper) or unincorporated (known variously as "possessions", "overseas territories" or "commonwealths") Territories may also be organized (with self-government explicitly granted by an Organic Act of the U.S. Congress) or unorganized (without such direct authorization of self-government). 31 of the current 50 states were organized incorporated territories before their admission to the Union. Since 1959, the United States has had only one incorporated territory (Palmyra Atoll), but maintains control of several unincorporated territories, both organized and unorganized.


and also from Article 4, Section 3 of the Second Constitution of the United States:



New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


So, you see: There is no country, only an ever growing Union.

Article I, Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 2, Section 3:
[The Preisdent] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union...

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

As a matter of fact, the Union constituion never even mentions the word "country"



As for the states basically being countries in a union, they're actually states, or administrative divisions inside a country, i.e. the United States.


The "United States" is not a country, it is the name of a union. Please see the preable to the second constitution:



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


United States... States that are United in a Union - "a more perfect Union."



Every country around the world has administrative divisions. The United States is no different. The "states" are administrative divisions. Perhaps they have more individual powers than most administrative divisions around the world. I don't know, that would have to be researched. But they aren't individual countries making up a union, they're divisions making up a country.


Cuba, the Philippines, Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau were once territories of the Union before becoming individual countries no longer associated with the Union. Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Peurto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands could very well be become states by Article 4, section three of the second constitution.

mod edit: code fixed

[edit on 12/20/2007 by Gools]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Crossing swords

Nice avatar, redoubt.


Originally posted by redoubt
I couldn't help but note how regionally bigotted your reply was.

Now here's the thing. William Faulkner is one of my favourite writers. I'm pretty familiar with the fields and woods of Yoknapatawpha County - do you know it? The Sartorises, the Compsons, the McCaslins, the Snopeses and all the rest live on in my imagination, as they do in many others', and though their creator is no longer with us, he is as immortal as they. So my 'regionally bigoted' reply was really by way of being a fairly delicate compliment. For your information, Faulkner was born near Oxford, Mississippi, in 1897.


Do you stereotype people from other nations in the same way?

I am from 'another nation'. A small, poor country in Asia, in fact.


How about gender?

You mean 'sex', I believe. 'Gender' is a linguistic term, applied to nouns and pronouns.

I think you may, to use a very Faulknerian image, be barking up the wrong tree here. Why not call off the dogs and proceed with the thread?

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


It's a "union" in the sense of the definition of "union": 1. the act of uniting two or more things.

But if you're implying all states are actually independent nations, then that's wrong. Are you implying all states are actually countries?

As for the Philippines, Palau etc.. I'd say that's more of an empire than a union. The United States can be considered an empire because of Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa etc.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Unfortunately your "discussion" builds straw men atop straw men.

1) "throwing away" one constitution for another. The Articles of Confederation were never a Constitution. Furthermore, the new constitution was not fully ratified until the same year that the Articles of Confederation were set to expire - 1790.


False.

www.loc.gov...


The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments.




2) There was no coercion or deceit involved in the adoption of the current Constitution. it was drafted by delegates chosen by the states, and brought to each state for vote and ratification. That is, each state as a n individual entity was presented with the opportunity to vote yes or no or even ask for changes before a vote. Each one of them voted in favor of the new constitution.


Simply not true. The main reason for it's adoption was to give more power to the central government, increase commerce, and levy taxes - the beginning of big government and capitalism. Each state did not ratify the constitution before it was adopted. It was not fully ratified until after it took effect.



4) The confederate states did not secede for a sanitized political term such as "State sovereignty." The confederate states seceded in order to preserve the practice of slavery which provided the backbone of their economies. Paint it any way you like, but no entity, "sovereign state" or no has any right to allow some of its population to treat others in the population as if they were livestock.


False again. The reason behind secession was that the North (Union i.e The United States of America) favored decreased states rights for a powerful intruding big central government, increased taxes, and a loose interpretation of the constitution. You have to look into the financial and banking influence in that area at the time to understand why. The South (i.e The Confederate States of America) favored strict adherence to the constituion, State rights, and a smaller, less intrusive central government. The issue of slavery is simply a red herring. If we must look back even further to discover the origin of slavery: Jamestown was established by the Virginia Company aka London Company. It was chartered by King James I and Financed by the Rothschild bank of London as the first permanent English settlement in America - solely for profit. As a matter of fact, the first slaves were brought to America there by the East/West India Companies, financed by the same. Now, who financed the civil war? The same.



5) The later "assimilations" of other states occurred with the full consent of the state governments, granted to them by the people thus governed, with one possible exception, that being the Kingdom of Hawai'i.


This false as well. A large area of the current Union was stolen from Mexico by war only to become Union territory. Texas was a sovereign country before being admited as a state of the Union, although it did agree to it.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




7) Yes, the United States has a centralized government. The territory is too vast and the population too large for a workable state-by-state governance. It is not through any sinister motive, but one of practicality and efficiency, which is recognized by all fifty states that make up the union, who have unanimously chosen to accept and maintain this way of working things.


This is the hook. It is the self-organizing ideal of Union and centralization of power that I spoke of. It is the ideal that grabs you, and it is the ideal that binds you. When we keep our eye on the ideal, we loose sight of reality and what may be lost - rights, liberties, privacy - of the state, and of the individual, etc... as for ideals:

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. ~Henry L. Mencken

"North America is too vast and the population too large for a workable state-by-state governance. The NAU is not a sinister motive, but one of practicality and eficiency, which is recognized by Mexico, Canada, and The US."

"The world is too vast and the population too large for a workable state-by-state governance. The One World Government is not a sinister motive, but one of practicality and efficiency, which is recognized by every member country."

"The galaxy is too vast and the population too large for a workable world-by-world governance. The Alliance is not a sinister motive, but one of practicality and efficiency, which is recognized by every member world."



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Crossing swords

Nice avatar, redoubt.


Originally posted by redoubt
I couldn't help but note how regionally bigotted your reply was.

Now here's the thing. William Faulkner is one of my favourite writers. I'm pretty familiar with the fields and woods of Yoknapatawpha County - do you know it? The Sartorises, the Compsons, the McCaslins, the Snopeses and all the rest live on in my imagination, as they do in many others', and though their creator is no longer with us, he is as immortal as they. So my 'regionally bigoted' reply was really by way of being a fairly delicate compliment. For your information, Faulkner was born near Oxford, Mississippi, in 1897.
[...]


I think you may, to use a very Faulknerian image, be barking up the wrong tree here. Why not call off the dogs and proceed with the thread?

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Astyanax]


I was merely passing through. I find a lot interesting enough to read but not to actually comment to. The original post in this thread was one of those.

Bravo on your appreciation of literature... but still, your application here was disappointing. You see, I know the US South... the real South as a matter of fact. I was born and raised here and so I am just all too familiar with the dirty, easy stereotypes. Yours was not even novel.

If you felt the need to argue the subject of that original post, do it the basic honor of addressing it... and not the author or offering nuanced insults to his/her cultural heritage.

Fairly simple, no?

Like I said, there was nothing I felt the need to speak to except your reply. I did that, made my point and find that it is still withstanding.

Have a nice day!

...



[edit on 20-12-2007 by redoubt]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


It's a "union" in the sense of the definition of "union": 1. the act of uniting two or more things.

But if you're implying all states are actually independent nations, then that's wrong. Are you implying all states are actually countries?



State and country are merely semantics. The State of Israel is called as such, but what country is it a member of? What we are dealing with here are sovereign, (semi)autonomous political bodies.


Country:
1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects.

You should be very aware that the lands that are now States United in the Union, per the constitution of said union, were formerly independent and do remain separate in the respect that they are semi-autonomous bodies with their own elected officials. At least two of them do not even geographically reside next to any other state in the Union. The lands admitted as States to the Union ("New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union") are done so as republics ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"), that is, as constituent political and territorial units of a national federation or union.

Per the Constitution for the United States of America, each State is admitted to the Union. The Union is the higher political body which overlaps each territory that is admitted to the Union in the form of a State - not all territory in the Union is admitted as a State, as you should be aware. This is how States were able to seceed from the Union. Once a land becomes a State, it is given a Republican form of government, and cedes much of it's sovereignty to the Union, i.e The Federal Union Government. The territory, land, (country in the case of Texas, Kingdom in the case of Hawaii, stolen land in the case of Mexico, and murdered Indians in the case of the rest.)

federal
1. made up of allies: relating to a form of government in which several states or regions defer some powers, e.g. in foreign affairs, to a central government while retaining a limited measure of self-government

and again:

Country:
1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects.

The United States is not a country as such, but a Federation. The Union called the United States, has a federal government, that is:

federal government:
central government: the central government of a federation

From Encarta Encyclopedia:



Confederation, in political terminology, a union of sovereign states each of which is free to act independently. It is distinguished from a federation, in which the individual states are subordinate to the central government.


Perhaps that will give insight to the people who believe that the war was over slavery, and what the Confederacy was really about. I'm sure you all can compare this to Ron Pauls political stance as well.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

Originally posted by Astyanax
A Socratic dialogue on states' rights. How Faulknerian!

Please tell me you hail from south of the Mason-Dixon line. One dare not hope for Mississippi.


I didn't offer that original post but... I couldn't help but note how regionally bigotted your reply was. Do you stereotype people from other nations in the same way? How about gender?

Yes, I am from very South of that line you refer to... should I now follow your lead and make an equally ignorant reply?


I didn't write that post either, but the first time I came into contact with anyone who talked about the Civil War--and believe me, it was repeatedly--was in college, and he was from Atlanta, well south of that line (I'm from well north of it, btw).

It was nearly a century and a half ago, but he just couldn't get over it. This post reeks of the same mentality, wanting to replay and rewrite history. It struck me then that what was for me a historical fact of no great emotional weight was for him a constant burr ttat obviously had shaped his worldview. I could hear all the dinner-table conversations he sat through in his childhood as parents replayed the War and nursed grudges and dreamed of victory and another world. Pie-in-the-sky.

Maybe the post was rude, but it was witty, and spot-on.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


Alright, now I see what you're getting at..

You're playing with very minor details to make a non-existent point. What you're basically doing is examining definitions down to the fine print and detail and twisting it to fit what ever meaning you want it to mean.

What are you even trying to say? The states are political divisions? Yeah, we know that already. That's no different than any other country around the world.

What else? The United States isn't a country? It's not a country because you are twisting the word "union" and "federation" because in your mind it absolutely must be one or the other?

If I go along with that and say 'you're right, it is a union'. Ok, now what? What point have you proved? What should we look around at and realize is different? What's different? What has changed?

The states are political administrative divisions who ultimately fall under a federal division of government whom is trying to centralize power. That's the most basic form of the set up in this country.

So what are you really trying to say? Lose the definitions and twisting of words and let us know, in the clearest most precise possible way, what point you're trying to make.

[edit on 12/21/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Since some people seem to care, I will start by saying that I was born and raised "in the north," being directly descended from the first Dutch setllers to come to the New World. My line can be traced to both wealthy landowners, and white slaves referred to as endentured servants for political correctness.

The Civil War in the United States had nothing directly to do with slavery. Slavery was simply a matter of economics, not of civil rights. You will notice in your history books that it took a century before the rights of freed slaves were addressed. The North could fund industrialization to alleviate their need of slave labor, whereas the South was not yet in the position to do so. I expect that even if the South had won the war, slavery would still have been abolished there long before today, and perhaps would have more directly coincided with the winning of civil rights for the freed.

States were indeed sovereign entities at one time, as the Constitution had designated. Independent states acting in league with one another for mutual benefit, but this union was never intended to supercede the rights of states. This is exactly what the Civil War was about. The North wanted more control over the products of the South, more economic control, but the states resisted and lost. The Emancipation Proclomation was merely a political move at the time meant to destroy the southern economy after the war so that they would never be able to resist again.

The erosion of sovereignty has been an ongoing process, but a prime example is the Buck Act of 1940. For taxation purposes, state republics did indeed need to become federal districts, which they had not yet been designated as up to that point. For example, the republic of Arizona (abbreviated Ariz.) became the federal STATE OF ARIZONA (abbreviated AZ.) Note the all caps. Arizona and ARIZONA are not the same entity. They are both drawn up with the same borders on a map and have the same spelling, but have two seperate legal statuses which are visibly differentiated by mode of print.

Again, this is all a matter of economics. Economics is also the reason that the United States went bankrupt ten years after the Federal Reserve was established by Woodrow Wilson. As a result of the bankruptcy, FDR issued an executive order effectively suspending the Constitution. It has never been restored, nor the emergency declared ended.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Novus:


What else? The United States isn't a country? It's not a country because you are twisting the word "union" and "federation" because in your mind it absolutely must be one or the other?


What? Either a federation or a union? It is a federated union. On the contrary, in your mind the United States is somehow a country. You're going to have to drop that notion for 15 minutes while you read the rest of this. Try not to judge, just let the information process without bias. I'm sure you can manage.

The second constitution, like the first, specifically refers to the "United States" as a Union between States that have their previous form of government stripped away, and are given a republican form of government once they enter the Union. This is odd considering that the constitutions and founding documents of every real country in the world refer to the land as a state, a country, or a nation. Only Unions refer to themselves as such in every such case.

The Phillipines constitution for example, establishes its land as a "democratic and republican State"

Ireland's constitution establishes, "the rightful independence of our Nation"

The modern constitution of Japan declares itself a state, and that "The Emperor shall be the symbol of the state"

North Korea's constitution establishes that "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist state"

Well now, the words "country" and "nation" never appear in the US constitution; however, the word "state" appears a few times when speaking of member states, especially that they "may be admitted to this Union."

I suppose that you think the Declaration of Independence created a country? Read it again, after reading this thread. I'll even help you out a little bit:



We ... solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States ... 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.



The declaration of independence did not found a country - it founded 13 Free and Independent States. Each one with the right to declare war, make peace, create alliances, etc.. just as all independent states do.

To further the idea of a Union being created after this declaration, we must take a look at the first constitution of the United States created 8 days after the D. of I. - the articles of confederation. The first Union was created with these very words, " [We] agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Does that sound like a country to you? No, it sounds exactly like what it is - a confederated union: group of loosely allied states: a group of states that are allied together to form a political unit in which they keep most of their independence but act together for purposes such as defense. I imagine the the EU constitution will have something similar.

Articles 1-3 reveal more:


ARTICLE I

The Style of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”

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.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.


Article I is where we first see the proper noun name given to the Union. Article two explains that each individual state is free and independent, except for the powers that were delegated to something else, namely something called "the United States." You can read the second constitution as well, the current federated union uses the same methodology.


The EU on the otherhand, refers to itself as a Union same as the first and second constitution of the United States. The difference between the first and the second was that the first had a requirement for all member states to be sovereign, while the second could have the amount of soveignty fiddled with.

The USA is only a country as much as the EU is a country. Yes, every country in the EU offers the exact same EU passport, and people are citizens of the EU, just like the US.

How about looking at it this way:

Article 17 (1) of the amended EC Treaty:



Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.


Yes, that is the precursor of the EU. I'm sure the EU constitution will be very interesting and quite similar to the US constitution. It refers to the individual countries as States. Imagine that, is it twisting words too? Now, lets take a look at the 14th amendment the the US federation constitution.



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Looks pretty similar in... all respects. As jackinthebox mentioned with the federal zones, there is a distinct difference between claiming to be a resident of a State, and claiming to be a citizen of a State, as shown that state citizenship still exists.



If I go along with that and say 'you're right, it is a union'. Ok, now what? What point have you proved? What should we look around at and realize is different? What's different? What has changed?


The implications are entirely up to you. *The fact* is that the original 13 states were declared free, sovereign states - the same as North Korea, Ireland, Japan, whatever. It must be the first time in history that 13 sovereign states where declared as such at the same time. They entered into a union that has been dissolving their independence ever since the inception of the union. The second constitution gave the union much more power of the states and we can see the aims of this union today in the middle east. When some of the states tried to reclaim that sovereignty that was given by the declaration of independence, what did the union do? The union stopped another revolutionary war, and we have regarded it as a civil war. Why do you suppose that is? Simple, because the union won. Had England won the "revolutionary war" it would have only been a "civil war" between england and her colonies. Since when is anything civil about war? It is only to cover up what it really was, all while we are fed the excuse that it was fought over slavery.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join