Not technically 50 countries. Never technically 50 countries.

The states share sovereignty with the federal government. There was never a desire for, say, Maryland to be its own independent republic.

Thinking of the American states as their own countries is a flawed idea. While they certainly are legitimate and popular in their origin and the federal government can't simply dictate to them or dissolve them, Wyoming's not signing any treaties. Calling them countries will just lead to a confusing and pointless dissection of semantics.

@ Invictus - You are right that that's the case since the Constitution was written. However, under the Articles of Confederation, it was supposed to be something like 13 autonomous nations, tied together for purposes of trade and war. It would be somewhat like the Greek city-states: tied together by culture and prudence but essentially independent.

Hardly. It would have been more like Switzerland, highly decentralized with a significant level of local autonomy but with a central foreign policy and armed forces and control of western territories, etc. The Articles were a looser union, but the states were never little nations tied together in some proto-EU. Nobody wanted independence for every former colony. They wanted a united nation which preserved their local governments.

Invictus, if "Nobody wanted independence for every former colony", can you explain why Vermont remained independent until the late 1790s and Rhode Island had to be dragged into the new union kicking and screaming, practically at gunpoint? It took three years for these allegedly subservient states to approve the creation of the federation they were supposedly a part of by default. Why did New England states seriously consider secession over the War of 1812 and the Mexican War (if they're not independent, of course, they can't secede!)? And why were the states called states at all (a word which was and to an extent still is synonymous with 'nation') instead of provinces or territories or some other title suggesting they were subdivisions of a larger central government? And why were The Several States always referred to in the plural?

The states were very much little nations; the only reasons for the adoption of the federal constitution were to solve a number of irritants certain people weren't happy with. Most importantly, it created a free trade zone to facilitate commerce (states were charging merchants from other states tariffs on imported goods and in a few cases even closing borders between states in trade disputes), a unified foreign policy, adoption of a currency standard (also to facilitate trade - the "(real) dollar" was a Spanish silver coin) and a treasury (which the original Articles of Confederation did not provide for - I've never heard of a country without a treasury, have you?).

The states maintained all other rights - a notion which was confirmed by the 9th and 10th amendments - including the foremost symbol of sovereignty, the ability to maintain armies; the central government had no army of its own for several years, and one of the two amendments that didn't make it into the bill of rights was a prohibition on a standing federal army. States had complete autonomy in their internal affairs (one positive aspect of this was the abolition of slavery in New England).

Arrangements like this have been entered into many times by independent states throughout history, and while sometimes the states eventually lose their sovereignty (Germany), sometimes they haven't (the Delian League). It wasn't until the War of Northern Aggression that the United States of America became an 'is' (singular) instead of an 'are' (plural).

hahahaha "War of Northern Aggression" really gives you away.... that's a term that hasn't been used by anyone save secessionists since like ever.

re: Articles of Confederation, yeah, they did leave the states totally autonomous, but that's why they failed miserably, and why they were quickly replaced with a real federal system in which the central national government had real authority *above* that of the several states.

i mean, following the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate gives a pretty brilliant picture of the real consequences and understandings of the imposition of a higher national authority, and the very critical rights the states knew they were about to lose (currency, interstate commerce, etc.)

You're a crazy person.

Vermont was independent because it was in land disputed between New York and New Hampshire. Plus, it never wanted to be independent, but New York wouldn't let Vermont in as its own state while it still claimed Vermont's land. Rhode Island delayed ratifying the Constitution (a very different thing from being dragged into and forcibly annexed to the United States) because it wanted a Bill of Rights.

"It took three years for these allegedly subservient states to approve the creation of the federation they were supposedly a part of by default."

First, who said subservient? You're confusing the Constitution with America as a nation. The fact that the Framers could agree that the Constitution went into effect after 9 states passed it shows that there was a sense of unity beyond just that document or any other. While New Hampshire and Georgia were and are radically different, they were still more like each other than like France or Holland or even Canada. That unity shows a nascent nationalism. The colonies declared independence together, after all.

It took a while to ratify because this was an important decision and a controversial decision and had to be debated in the legislatures. The time it took to pass is not an indicator of each state's desire to be it's own little principality. This was a dramatic revision of governance and needed to be studied. Even if it hadn't passed that wouldn't have meant that each state was an independent nation. Would Connecticut start setting up consulates in Europe? The states would be a lot like Swiss cantons, sovereign but united and subnational. There was never an argument about individual separation, although separation along sectional lines later developed. It was always about how to create a federal system to balance local freedom and a centrally directed order.

Certainly the differences between the states makes it fuzzy by a modern standard, but that was more for the advantage of businesses in the state than an exercise in international trade. Plus, what else could have happened if the Confederation Congress couldn't control interstate trade? The fact that there was no treasury was because Congress couldn't tax. We could pass an amendment today revoking the government's ability to tax. Would that make the US no longer a country? It's an inefficient way to run things but it does not lead to the states being there own countries. The Articles were a loose confederation but there was a consensus that they belonged together as one nation, something independent countries like France and Belgium (arguably just about as similar) did not have. Yes I know Belgium didn't exist then.

You're dead wrong about armies. Only Congress can raise armies and state militias are organized by Congress. They are under each state's control (or they once were...) but are funded by Congress and need recognition by Congress. Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 11 and 16.

Each state had its own legal system inherited from before the creation of the federal government. It was through those assemblies that slavery was abolished. If different jurisdictions is what a country makes then any subnational unit with a legislature which can make laws is its own country. Are Indian states their own countries because they have legislatures for their own affairs?

I don't know enough about Imperial Germany or the Delian League to argue the nuances of their contitutional make-up (and I assume neither do you), but I will say that German Bundeslaender are very powerful. That's also a completely different tradition, involving a transition from independent monarchies to some other system under Prussia/Germany to republican governments.

You again show your craziness by referring to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. The Civil War saw a new nationalism to be sure, but that doesn't mean that beforehand the states were their own countries. As always, the states were part of the country. The Union fought to keep the country together, not prevent some countries from leaving.

The states wanted to preserve their sovereignty from a unitary revision. An American state is just that, an American state. It's not its own country and its not some creature of the federal government.

I was right about a confusing and pointless dissection of semantics.

Interesting article. Thinking of the states as different nations, has anyone tried playing Diplomacy across them, using each state as an SC?

"You're a crazy person." Ouch! My feelings are hurt. I think I'm going to cry!

Let's look at the Declaration of Independence: "these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States". Note that "States" is plural. If Jefferson had been talking about a unified American nation, why would he not have said so, instead of talking about numerous independent states (I will point out again that the word "state" meant then and to an extent still does mean an independent nation)? Note that Jefferson didn't say "constituent parts of an as yet undefined independent nation" or even "ought to be a Free and Independent American Nation". If that's what everyone was thinking at the time as you insist, why didn't he write it so?

You are correct that Rhode Island ratified (on a vote of 34-32) after the Bill of Rights had been ratified, and while all government-approved textbooks claim this was the reason, the truth is a little more complicated than that. Ratification took several votes, and was only successful when several anti-Federalists weren't present to vote (in other words, if everyone had been there, it never would've been ratified). Remember as well that the vote was successful only after it was obvious that Rhode Island was going to be excluded from the newly-created free trade zone which the Constitution and its member states created, which would've been death for Rhode Island's economy (the chief pushers of ratification in RI were the merchants). Also, when Rhode Island ratified it also demanded that 21 additional amendments be approved; number one was this:

"I. The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."

(http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html) Now why would an administrative subdivision (as you are suggesting the states were perceived to be) be demanding a guaranty of "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" from the government that embodied this American nation you're convinced everyone thought they were a part of?

"While New Hampshire and Georgia were and are radically different, they were still more like each other than like France or Holland or even Canada. That unity shows a nascent nationalism. The colonies declared independence together, after all."

The fact that two countries are 'alike' in some way does not mean they are the same country - otherwise, independence from the English-speaking mother country would've been pretty pointless and the hundreds of constituent states of the Holy Roman Empire never would've been, well, constituent states. And the colonies didn't declare independence together; some states declared independence before the main declaration, and one colony (Florida) remained solidly loyal to Britain throughout the entire war.

"You're dead wrong about armies." No, you misread what I wrote. I didn't say that Congress did not have the authority to raise an army in the Constitution. I said it declined to do so for several years after the constitution's adoption, and many were opposed to the concept entirely (as I mentioned, one of the two amendments that didn't make it into the Bill of Rights was a prohibition on standing armies in peacetime). And I'd like to see a cite for your claim that the mlitias were funded by Congress and not the states themselves.

"You again show your craziness by referring to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression." The term 'Civil War' is a serious misnomer. Historically, a Civil War is when competing factions fight for control of a particular country. The War of Northern Aggression was in fact a war of aggression by northerners who wanted to keep southerners from exercising their rights to self-determination. Jefferson Davis never said he wanted to replace Lincoln as President of the United States of America. The southern states were trying to exercise their rights to remove themselves from a union they'd voluntarily entered into. You obviously believe that states have no legal or moral authority to secede; if that's the case, where did they get the legal or moral authority to join?

The original idea was. To make 50 sovriegn states aka the rest to the rest o the world states means countries. Each has a court system and a set of laws and so on like a functioning nation but then came the arguement of federal vs. States power. And eventually we ended up with a very centralized goverment. Remember it wasn't until after the civil war that currency was centralized. A lot of what we know today isn't like it always was. There used to be a lot larger sense of state pride because many treated a state as their country and homeland so i created this thread to see what you thought about your state.

What I would like to know is how things are in other countries. While there is a central government, each state can also be very different. For example, under federal law Marijuana is illegal, but several states have legalized it for medical use. Another example, is if you are driving from Oregon to California, you will be stopped and checked for fruit because California has a law against the importation of fruit. In most states there is a sales tax and you can pump your own gasoline at the gas station. But in Oregon there is no sales tax and you cannot pump your own gas (which always bugs me even though I grew up with it that way.)

What is it like in Australia, England, Canada, and other countries? Do they have territories with such different rules?

CSA anyone? damn those rebels

I'm studying in England right now and have only really begun to understand the oddity of the American system -- despite having lived there all my life.

Here in England and the EU, they actually appear *more* coherent than we are back home. One example has to do with nation-state boundaries; in many places, there is no "welcome to X" sign, and police jurisdiction is readily extended across national lines, even so far as to enforce another nation-state's parking tickets.

I am preparing to argue in a major paper that the US is more traditionally statist than many of the nation-states that exist in the EU world.... it's fucking weird.

And for those of all who are familiar with the First-World/Second-World/Third-World (or Annex 1, etc.) classification of nation-states, contemporary academic thought here in England apparently uses a breakdown of "pre-modern, modern, post-modern" (in that order) and get this... America is not considered post-modern.

America, to them, is an odd incongruity left over from the Cold War, an international guarantor of peace which is the sole remaining military power in the world. The truly post-modern states have shrinking defense expenditures (often less than 10% of the national budget) which leaves a lot of room for provision of goods to the people.... and believe you me, there is much merriment and love to be shared for this transition....

I could go on for hours, but I ought to save much of this for the paper...

that is weird, dude

Well sure, if you cut defensive spending and instead spend it on goodies, the populace will be merry. Until another country does something bad and you have no way to do anything about it. Basically, because of the U.S. military, those countries can get away with cutting their defense budgets because they know the U.S. will come to the rescue if necessary. Who would come to the rescue of the U.S. if the U.S. stepped down?

@Tolstoy: Why did New England states seriously consider secession over the War of 1812--- Haven't you studied American History? You should know that the almost secession was really just proposed by radical Federalists who had recently lost their power in Congress and had retreated on the national stage to the Judiciary with the likes of Marshall. They wanted to use the war (and America's crappy job of it) as a way to pin blame on the Republicans and thus they proposed to secede. The Essex Junto, as said Federalists were called, Madison not among them at this point having changed ideologies from the Critical Period, met at the Hartford Convention, but after the nation succeeded, sort of near the end of the war, the Federalists were chastised and faded from the political stage, though aspects of their ideology in terms of economic policy became relevant later. Just a quick History 101 lesson

Also guys, in discussing state v federal authority look at the nullification crisis in SC, and later the secession of the CSA as I mentioned in an earlier post. Also don't forget the ideas that emerged with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of Madison and T. Jeff. in response to Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts... if we are going to have a debate on the nature of the relationship between national and state government power, we need to view it as a dynamic force that undulated throughout history at specific points. Let's not make some big generalizations, but rather stick to some nicely organized historical data =) Go History!

@alderian, yeah. that's actually one of the biggest paradoxes here of the modern/post-modern world. it's entirely uncertain whether the US could in fact relinquish the burden of world security without letting the entire global order (of which it's been a major beneficiary) collapse totally.

but in the form of counterargument, if the US were to reinvent itself as a "true" post-modern power, would it be so goddamn big a target? european nations are far more liberal and infidel than the US is, but they draw little to no "real" attention from the broken pre-modern terrorist world (save for incidents such as 7/7).

isn't it about time in this thread for someone to say "JOIN MY LIVE GAME"? ;-)

another real paradox of the modern/post-modern world. does it count, say, if Noob179 says "JOIN MY LIVE GAME" without actually having a live game for us to join?

The states were never intended to be viewed as different countries, but they were intended to have more legislative power than the federal government itself. The purpose was to have a set of universal and broad set of laws that are true under any circumstance that are protected by the federal government while leaving the specifics to each individual state so that it was easier for the people to havea direct voice in the issues that effected them daily.

For example, on the issue of separation between church and state. ( I am picking this intentionally since it is such a merky topic) Our Constitution clearly has many references to the general term "God" and not a specific god or religion while providing for freedom of religion. The role of the federal government was to ensure that everyone had the right to worship as they saw fit. The role of the state governments was to decide how to allow equal opportunity, not favor one religion over another. While Jefferson was in office in Virginia before becoming President there were four sects of Christianity in his town as the religions, so all four had their preachers rotate Sundays at the pulpit in the State Courthouse where everybody would attend. Had another sect of Christianity or another faith all together requested to join the rotation, then state law would have dictated that they be allowed. Federal law gave the overarching perameters, and state law found a solution that worked for them.

Mwhahaha. Finally! A thread that I can pour my brain into!

The federal government was designed to strenghten the relationship between the 13 colonies. NOT take over for them and render them relics of the Articles of Confederation. The states are merely responsible for trivial day-to-day things, like health care and welfare. The federal government just serves as an insurance against secession and to unite the states in the event of a major attack on the United States. Beyond that, the federal government should do absolutely nothing aside from keeping the military and defense agencies strong and organized.

so, you'd claim that the original USA was designed to be very much UN-esque in the sense that it establishes a supranational/superstate-type entity to maintain a balance of power against *any* aggressor?

bbdaniels at least that was the orignial idea. Before the Revolutionary war if you crossed statelines you have gone to a new country. And that was how the founding fathers meant to keep it but then congress gained too much leverage and the constitution allowed for a much more centrelized goverment than the articles of confederation.

it's an interesting idea, but i don't think that's necessarily true.

1) "too much" is the sort of weasel word that ought to be avoided in debate.
2) re: the constitution, but wasn't the whole idea of the 1787 convention to create a truly functional national government that would usurp the sovereignty of the "several states" and in doing so be more effective than those several "in Congress assembled"?

At the time the US was experimenting with a relatively new system of government. Unless someone will specifically define a country in all aspects, I think its better to think of this as a continuum between independent and sovereign countries versus a strict federal government where states or districts have less and less powers.

There are obviously varying degrees of these, and so many different parts of government that were separated among states and federal governments. How can you really define something so vague as a country?

I like to think of the US under the articles of confederation as the next step up from completely independent. Over the years we have progressively taken more and more steps towards increasing the federal powers through powerful personalities in the presidency, judicial branch, and through the rest of the federal government.

Maybe the states should have had the right to secede at one time, but as far as I know, it wasn't written down anywhere in the Constitution. The fact is that two thirds of states or both houses is required to pass amendments, and the CSA never made up a majority, to allow the possibility of an amendment for secession. I believe its better we stuck together.

The great thing about the constitution is that, instead of giving all the power to the federal government and granting exceptions to the states, it gives all the power to the individual states and spells out exactly what the feds are allowed to do. So, in essence, every state has absolute power except on issues specifically spelled out in the constitution.

As far as the separation of church and state, the constitution only prohibits congress from making a law establishing a specific religion as the national religion. It does *not* prohibit states from having an official religion nor does it ban any religious references in public buildings (despite what the ACLU would like us all to think).

@Draugnar - I completely agree with everything you stated other than the part about states being allowed to have official religions. That would give preference to that particular religion over the others, which is why there is a separation between any specific church and "state". Yes, public buildings are allowed to make references to God, just not a Christian God, Catholic God, Muslim God, etc... the ACLU is full of it. It's too bad most people, including our elected officials, don't read the Constitution correctly. You obviously do : )

You know i didn't create this thread for this. I just wanted to know if people were still so proud of there states that they would secede or if w have become less state focused but more federal focused