Toscead betweox fadungum "Mōtung:Geanedu Ricu American"

Content deleted Content added
Walda (motung | forðunga)
ly fmt
Walda (motung | forðunga)
lyNo edit summary
Líne 51:
:::This is getting complicated. I still think there is a simple solution staring at us...
 
:::Just to remind us, remember that the confusion exists in Modern English, too, and comes from the notion of "'''divided sovereignty."''' Jefferson and the "country party" favored strong state governments with most of the operation of government performed in rural counties where it could be more accountable to the people. On other hand, Hamilton and the "court party" wanted to create a single, consolidated state exactly like Great Britain's in order to create conditions favorable to mercantilist combination and expansion. So Madison, a member of the "country party" came up with the compromise of ''divided sovereignty,'' under which there were two kinds of "states:" the states, which were the countries or republics making up the federation, and the treaty-state, the federal government. The latter gives us the office "Secretary of State." That's two kinds of States in America. The American innovation of divided sovereignty partly leads to our confusion today.
 
:::''State'' was applied to the sundry republics to emphasize that all sovereignty ('''ríce"''') lay in the states ("'''rícas"'''). ''Federal,'' which comes from Latin ''foedus,'' '"compact"' or "treaty," was applied to the general government to emphasize that it was a creation of the sovereign states. Further, for example, since roads were bad, people travelled little and called their state their "country," "commonwealth," or "republic." Thus, the Founding Fathers and the People alike viewed the states as equal to ''kingdoms.'' (But naturally, since they didn't elect kings, they had to call them something else.)
 
:::Today, we use "state" in the same fashion. But sometimes we become confused with our own states, because we no longer view them as sovereign states united under a common treaty, as "From the many comes the one." Instead, we think of one sovereign State divided into several provinces, as "From the one come the many." But despite the confusion, the word state still means sovereign entity ('''ríce'''), equal to a kingdom.
 
:::Imagine if England were organized as a heptarchy of seven separate kingdoms. In theory, that is how the US is organized: as fifty kingdoms called "states" without kings.
 
:::Germany likewise began as a confederation of kingdoms. But as it consolidated, it changed the nomenclature, demoting the kingdoms to duchies and the like, and reserving ''Reich'' only for what used to be a confederation. The Germans now apply "''Länder'' to what are somewhat equivalent to the old kingdoms. The U.S. never made that change in nomenclature.
 
:::Then there is the European union of '''states''' with a new, proposed Constitution (France will have other chances to approve one). If approved, this proposed government promises to evolve into a consolidated government like in the US, and expect its constituent countries to be still called "states." Some of these states are still kingdoms. Don't forget the Commonwealth of Independent '''States''' with a common government in Moscow. Historically, some of them were also kingdoms.
 
:::Alright, I just wrote a small tome because I find the topic intriguing, and I wish to emphasize that our states are not really shires (counties) or marks (frontiers). I also think that it is fitting to reflect the American concept of '''divided sovereignty''' correctly in the terminology. This unique concept is either a confusing relic of the past, or it is an intriguing witness of how American government works in practice. Moreover, "'''ríce''' preserves the conceptual paradox and it accurately reflects the real political debate over the "big federal government," no matter what side anybody falls on.
 
:::Thanks, everyone, for the fascinating discussion!
Return to "Geanedu Ricu American" page.