The "United States" Vs. "America" - a Structural Political Analysis

The United States of America. In general, the very name of the country is now far removed from its meaning. The country of the United States has been subtly replaced by "America," a mega-state of all the states. We think of ourselves as "Americans" above all, and state members like "Californians" or "Floridians" as a side note. However, that was not the intent of the creation of the United States, and the federal government superseding the states is an aberration that the Constitution was designed to prevent - as the founders knew history, and some feared the day when the United States would become one country as it is now. Is it any wonder they feared such a thing, given the current State of the Union with its ever-consolidating power?

The issue of "States' Rights" that we learned about in jr. high history was about this very issue, the right of a state to declare a federal law null and void within that state. The Civil War was quite possibly about this issue more than any other. Slavery is what we are taught to be at the root of the Civil War, but really, the real cause may likely have been the battle for state's rights - the right of states to remain the autonomous entities they originally were prior to the Constitution, and the Federal portion of government remaining relegated to maintaining a loose unity (confederacy) among them for mutual benefit. Issues such as common defense, the basic structure for a common law, and ensuring free trade and travel between the states were paramount.

The role of the federal government was meant to be one of very general administration. That's why the Constitution had to be ratified by each state individually. Each wanted to make sure that in this common administration, no state would have an advantage over any other, particularly in interstate commerce. Each state, then, could adapt its own internal administration to suit the specific wishes of its own citizens without adversely affecting any other state. If it could affect another state adversely, then Federal Law would have authority to right the wrong - that was the intended extent of Federal power as stated in the Constitution.

We were taught that the South wanted to keep slavery, the North abhorred it, and so they went to war for the sake of the slaves. The North won, and Lincoln preserved the Union by defeating the Confederacy. What the South was really fighting for was to return to a the "United States" exactly that: United States that were in the part of the world commonly called America and were largely self-governing (LIBERTY!), but giving a little autonomy to the Federal government to maintain an equable partnership with other states (JUSTICE FOR ALL!).

The Union was trying to consolidate more power and autonomy at the Federal level, the roots of the super-state "America." When the South decided the United States was becoming bigger at the federal level than the sum of its parts, they broke off on their own to make a new confederacy. The Union, though, did not want to lose this newfound power and deficit-spent into war to force the South to get back on board. Lincoln is revered for preserving the Union, but could he have known what it would lead to? Did he foresee the effects of growing Federal authority over the states as a path to tyranny? Could he have?

The Constitution was designed to allow for Federal authority by consent, as the framers were wise enough to know it is far more effective way to go than authority by force. England had been asserting authority by force, and the colonies fought against it. It is then reasonable to assume that the founders of the mutual alliance of the colonies would want to create a way for states to remain free, but subject themselves to the least amount of outside authority as possible while still maintaining the benefits of being as one country with the other states, namely freedom to live, work, trade, and move about while keeping a mutual framework for banding together to defend the interests of all against other countries. Or put another way, American States should be largely self-governing (LIBERTY!), while giving up a limited amount of autonomy to the Federal government to maintain an equable partnership with other states (JUSTICE FOR ALL!). Enter the document called the Articles of Confederacy, which served as the cornerstone of the United States government until the drafting of The Constitution in the late 1780s.

The ratification of the Consitution itself was intensely debated, with the main divisions of opinion being between the Federalists, who were in favor of a strong central (consolidated) government, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong consolidated government. Patrick Henry was one of the most outspoken opponents of a strong consolidated government, and in his opposition he spoke of the potential pitfalls of such a system in a manner that can only be described as prophetic. In a speech made to the Constitutional Convention on June 5, 1788, Henry said:

The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous...You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government...Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty?...But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny: Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism...My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?... If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation: We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty:Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms: Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe: that country is engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: You may sleep in safety forever for them. Where is the danger? If, Sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; - - that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: To that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer, to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let no Gentlemen be told, that it is not safe to reject this Government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers; but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated... The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be?...But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?...And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system....I see great jeopardy in this new Government.

Today, the Federal Government has a say in every aspect of its citizens' lives from cradle to grave. Laws are imposed upon states that do not reflect the states' individual values as reflected in the decisions of the citizens themselves. California's people and the people of a growing number of states (no pun intended) democratically chose to make Marijuana legal for medical purposes as a reflection of the collective values of the citizens. Some states have not. Yet, Federal Law imposes a single standard upon ALL states. This is a prime example illustrating that "America," that is to say the Federal Government, IS the only "true" state now.

The North's victory in the Civil War was the birth of the "America" we know now, and the War itself validated Patrick Henry's concerns about consolidated government. (Note: The adoption of a central bank also plays a major role in shaping what America is, but that subject is beyond the scope of this article.) The Constitution is kept around now to give the illusion that the "United States" still exists, when, in fact, it has not existed for a long time. The "Constitutional Crisis" we face is nothing less than the illusion fading away before our eyes as we wonder, "How is the Federal government able to thumb its nose at the Constitution so easily?" We realize that it can only be because those who swear to "uphold it" know that it is, as they've suggested, a DEAD document. The Feds don't use it, as they have no need of it. The Constitution has long since been replaced by other Codes, and the Supreme Court is a purely political body that is used to maintain the illusion of "Constitutionality" in our laws. The Feds do not need "laws," as they have military power and economic control consolidated in their hands, which they use at will to advance their agenda. The people have no recourse, exactly as Patrick Henry predicted more than 200 years ago: "Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?"

People can still believe in the Founding Fathers, and quote the Bill of Rights all they want, and they can argue Constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Court, who then decides, "should we throw them a bone here, or not? First Amendment case, sure let them have that one. Eminent Domain? Heck, no. Warrantless wiretaps? What, I didn't catch that one..." It's all to feed the illusion that the "United States" as we are taught in school (coincidence?) actually exists. It doesn't. We think that it does, and this is the core of the authority of the Oligarchy in Washington. It is authority by force, but with our consent. Forced consent, but consent nevertheless, based on true patriotism for a country that only exists in our minds.

There are some who see what is happening and believe it to be the work of a One World Government conspiracy, or the Illuminati, or the NWO, what have you. None of them, though, is the "real deal." These are carefully crafted fantasies designed to keep people guessing about who seems to have the shadowy power to control the world. It's a bit like Poe's story "The Purloined Letter." The police are looking for a letter, but despite hard work, they never find it because it is sitting out right in the open. Their own prejudices and lack of imagination do not allow them to see the obvious, they insist that it has to be hidden somewhere. The real WMDs are Weapons of Mass Distraction, and we are attacked with them everyday. Until true Patriots can collectively neutralize the effects of WMDs, they will be chasing shadows, and the last hope of making the United States something more than a fond dream of the Founders will be gone.