E pluribus pluribus?

Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
226
#1
The states in the union where not sovereign as have already been proven to you a number of times. L
When you can't enter into treatises with other sovereign states, don't control your territory and can't have an army then you are not a sovereign state.
"Can't."
You keep saying this word.

***Edited***


I think it does not mean what you think it means.

You're confusing delegation of national powers, with surrender of national sovereignty... ***edited***

Clearly shown by the simple fact that no sovereign state in the world recognized this sovereignty you claim.
Actually the Treaty of Paris recognized it, by the sovereign nation-states of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, the Holy Roman Empire etc.
There, his Brittanic Majesty acknowledged the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treated with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquished all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

A state is sovereign if they exerciser that sovereignty and others recognize this... and the US states are clearly forbidden by the US Constitution to do so. (and so is it under the CSA one, btw.
***Edited***
"Forbidden" doesn't mean what you think, either.
The Constitution never expressly united the states as a single nation state, so that didn't happen.


and another thing.
The words Nation and state are two different things... and the words are not interchangeable.
If you want to get into semantics, we'll have to go to the Law of Nations:

Book : CHAPTER I: Of Nations or Sovereign States.

§1. Of the state, and of sovereignty.
A nation or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.


Currently, there are two main different types of “sovereign state” under international law:

1) internationally sovereign states, aka “nation-states,” which are independently and supremely self-ruling; and

2) domestically sovereign states, which are subordinate to a larger nation-state.


Sovereign nation-states are also known by the term “sovereign nations,” such as Great Britain, France, Italy, or Japan etc. Meanwhile, domestically sovereign states, would be like the states of the national republic of Brazil, otherwise known as "federated units" like Rio.

In any event, each American state was described to the teeth as separate, sovereign nation-states from 1776 onward; and James Madison likewise defined them in 1800 as "A people in their highest sovereign capacity," and that there was no higher legal authority.
***Edited***
 
Last edited by a moderator:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

StephenColbert27

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,427
Location
Lost, Somewhere in London
#2
"Can't."
You keep saying this word.
***Edited***
I think it does not mean what you think it means.


You're confusing delegation of national powers, with surrender of national sovereignty... thus proving that you really don't have even the most basic knowledge of this subject.


Actually the Treaty of Paris recognized it, by the sovereign nation-states of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, the Holy Roman Empire etc.
There, his Brittanic Majesty acknowledged the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treated with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquished all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.


***Edited***
"Forbidden" doesn't mean what you think, either.
The Constitution never expressly united the states as a single nation state, so that didn't happen.



If you want to get into semantics, we'll have to go to the Law of Nations:

Book : CHAPTER I: Of Nations or Sovereign States.

§1. Of the state, and of sovereignty.
A nation or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.


Currently, there are two main different types of “sovereign state” under international law:

1) internationally sovereign states, aka “nation-states,” which are independently and supremely self-ruling; and

2) domestically sovereign states, which are subordinate to a larger nation-state.


Sovereign nation-states are also known by the term “sovereign nations,” such as Great Britain, France, Italy, or Japan etc. Meanwhile, domestically sovereign states, would be like the states of the national republic of Brazil, otherwise known as "federated units" like Rio.

In any event, each American state was described to the teeth as separate, sovereign nation-states from 1776 onward; and James Madison likewise defined them in 1800 as "A people in their highest sovereign capacity," and that there was no higher legal authority.
There's no flex on this, sorry.

"1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Also:
"2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Not sure how a state can said to be sovereign if it cannot engage in basic matters of diplomacy, pass tariffs, have an army, and its own laws are secondary to that of a larger state of which it is a part.
The U.S. is a federated republic. That means that states by definition have only a limited form of internal sovereignty.

Finally:
"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."
Sounds like forming a nation to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
32,702
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#3
Actually the Treaty of Paris recognized it, by the sovereign nation-states of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, the Holy Roman Empire etc.
There, his Brittanic Majesty acknowledged the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treated with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquished all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Wasn't the Treaty of Paris only Britain not the Holy Roman Empire etc. They were not signatories. It is the sovereign right of each international sovereignty to recognize who they want. Ireland was part of Britain and not a separate sovereign country.
In any event, each American state was described to the teeth as separate, sovereign nation-states from 1776 onward; and James Madison likewise defined them in 1800 as "A people in their highest sovereign capacity," and that there was no higher legal authority.
That sovereignty ended with when they ratified the Constitution.
Which Madison recognized a bit later in the document, where that fragment of a quote out of context came, that the States did not have the sovereignty which your post attached to the fragment.
Report of 1800,
It has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution. ... [T]he declarations of [the citizens or the state legislature], whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government ... are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged​

There's no flex on this, sorry.
I understand your standing by your opinion, but some references would be nice.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
226
#5
It certainly wasn't a nation. Considering that they were part of Great Britain and loyal to it. They didn't declare independence from Great Britain until 1776, and they did so as separate Nations, United only in the objective of successfully achieving that status.
They never formed a single nation state. Ever.
***Edited***
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
226
#6
The term "Perpetual Union" has been the most equivocating Dogma in world history. Just because a coupon has no expiration date, doesn't mean you own the company by redeeming it.
Likewise, joining a Workers Union does not mean they own you.
The only unions between the states, were voluntary International unions between separate Sovereign Nation States, not some sort of Union that can join them into a single nation. And before that, they weren't even nation-States, they were colonies of Great Britain. End of discussion.
Edited.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
32,702
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#8
it certainly wasn't a nation. Considering that they were part of Great Britain and loyal to it. They didn't declare independence from Great Britain until 1776, and they did so as separate Nations, United only in the objective of successfully achieving that status.
They never formed a single nation state. Ever.
***Edited***
Just repeating something does not make it true.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
885
#9
Pffft. The term "Perpetual Union"
has been the most equivocating Dogma in world history. Just because a coupon has no expiration date, doesn't mean you own the company by redeeming it.
Likewise, joining a Workers Union does not mean they own you.
The only unions between the states, were voluntary International unions between separate Sovereign Nation States, not some sort of Union that can join them into a single nation. And before that, they weren't even nation-States, they were colonies of Great Britain. End of discussion.
When one offers nothing other than unsupported opinion, it is indeed the end of any meaningful discussion.
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
6,227
#11
When one offers nothing other than unsupported opinion, it is indeed the end of any meaningful discussion.
Yes. The end of discussion proclamation was encouraging, for a moment, that we were actually going to pass through the other side of the phantom toll booth and get back to reality.

Living rent free in someone's head is amusing, until it isn't.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
32,702
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#12
Yes. The end of discussion proclamation was encouraging, for a moment, that we were actually going to pass through the other side of the phantom toll booth and get back to reality.

Living rent free in someone's head is amusing, until it isn't.
Indeed, but is much cheaper than research.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,049
Location
Denver, CO
#13
The problem is that sovereignty is not just a word on paper.
States and individual sovereignty may be useful in terms of advocating some type of anti-government platform, but I don't know much about that.
One of the first problems with independence is that the United States began as a maritime economy and its ships were no longer protected by the British navy.
If the United States can solve that problem is looks like a sovereign, if cannot solve that problem then it does not look like a sovereign and instead it looks like something that could be fractured and conquered.
The next issue is that the were four empires still very active in the Western Hemisphere, other than the United States.
They were Portugal, Spain, France and Britain.
The historical development could have been that the United States became dependent on one of these empires and eventually been absorbed by one of them.
That is not what happened. France retreated from North America, Britain concluded that the War of 1812 was too expensive to justify the small benefits that accrue mainly to the government, and Spain gave up its claims to Florida while it retained Cuba.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,049
Location
Denver, CO
#14
Sovereignty requires the repression of internal revolution.
England, France and Germany had all experienced one or more internal revolts and repressed them.
The United States had several potential revolts, but only one resulted in a shooting war.
So the United States demonstrated its sovereignty much the same way the European Empires demonstrated sovereignty.
It repressed indigenous peoples, created a navy, held its own against the other empires and ruthlessly repressed an internal revolt.
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,425
#15
Sovereignty requires the repression of internal revolution.
England, France and Germany had all experienced one or more internal revolts and repressed them.
The United States had several potential revolts, but only one resulted in a shooting war.
So the United States demonstrated its sovereignty much the same way the European Empires demonstrated sovereignty.
It repressed indigenous peoples, created a navy, held its own against the other empires and ruthlessly repressed an internal revolt.
So not much really changed. We went from being Subjects of England to being Subjects of New England?
 

StephenColbert27

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,427
Location
Lost, Somewhere in London
#16
So not much really changed. We went from being Subjects of England to being Subjects of New England?
Uh, no. Prior to the Revolution the colonies had no representation in Parliament. They had equal votes afterward under the Articles, and a combination of population and equal representation under the Constitution. In addition, the people (that is, white landowning males) now had indirect say on both the Presidency and the appointment of judges.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,049
Location
Denver, CO
#17
So not much really changed. We went from being Subjects of England to being Subjects of New England?
If you want to see it that way, OK.
However, the formation of the United States as a potential union was based on a very high degree of unanimity.
Compromises were incorporated into the Constitution to obtain nearly unanimous assent. The Parliament in London did not seek any consent from anyone in the American colonies.
In the continuation of the United States there is not going to be unanimity all the time.
The processes of elections and appointments and the judicial system imply that there will be political winners and losers, and that there will be modifications of the Constitution.
We the people, with respect to the formation and existence of the United States, includes everyone.
To be or not to be, the national existential question, is decided by everyone together.
Every minority is to that degree, oppressed.
As to the creation of the United States, it was an aspirational, until Jefferson dealt with financial problems involved in international diplomacy and Madison proved the United States could successfully resist British aggression.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
226
#18
At least by the Articles of Confederation. This is how they open:

Further down...
LOL "Further down."
Aka pay no attention to that elephant in the room!

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.

Looks like the elephant's out of the bag; and "perpetual confederacy" simply pertained to the nature of the union being that only an international federal republic among sovereign nations-- after the model described by Emerich de Vatel in the Law of Nations: Book I, Chapter I, § 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.


This was clearly the template for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union-- as noted the phrase "perpetual confederacy," which are both terms used, to define the type of Union it creates: i.e. a federal republic of sovereign nation-states, in which each state expressly retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and only delegates certain powers, jurisdictions and rights to the common (international) Congress among them.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
226
#20
At first the Constitutional Union of 1789 was little more than a reaffirmation of the Articles confederation
So you concede that even the Constitution did not form the states into a single nation-state, but only a second international federal republic among separate sovereign nation-states.

but as time when on and the transportation and market revolutions (Clay's American system) of the early to mid 19th Centuries took hold, some Americans began to understand that the Union of the states was something more than a union of states. I think Webster, in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830 showed that for the Northeast the Union had become something "now and forever, one and inseparable". The tragedy was that while the Old Northwest would come to agree with Webster's vision of what the Union was by mid century, or could be, Southerners continued to abide by an older understanding, one better articulated by Calhoun, wherein the federal Union was still seen as something of a confederation of sovereign states.

The Civil War, tragic as it was, cemented in the minds of the North that the Union called the United States was the equivalent of what we call a nation state.
**********Hitler reference edited**********

I'm afraid you've confused national sovereignty, with adverse possession.
I'm sorry, but your entire rhetoric shows a gross misperception of international law, believing it to be based on a vague popular consensus, rather than formal statutes of recognition that are permanent until expressly changed; and so you are rationalizing an imperial holocaust, as a mere difference of opinion-- and blaming the victims for not "keeping up with the times."
I'm sorry, that simply shocks the conscience of anybody who has one.
But more importantly, it destroys the fundamental concept of democracy, by placing final authority with a Leviathan oligarchy over the actual Peoples of the individual nation-states, which were the final barrier against tyranny by allowing them to alter or abolish their government at will, since it derived its just powers by their consent.
Thanks to Lincoln, oligarchy was back, but in a way that told the People that they were in charge.. they just didn't have final authority, except in a token sense.
This has fundamentally changed modern thinking, to the degree where only a major paradigm-shift based on the facts, can possibly liberate the corrupted mindset to the reality it has long-suppressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top