Toscead betweox fadungum "Mōtung:Geanedu Ricu American"

"State" does not mean province or sub-state. Each of the United States were called "states" because they were viewed as states, not as provinces, or sub-states. The Founding Fathers were quite explicit about what the word meant at the time when they coined "United States." Their greatest fear was that one day a grand central government seated in Washington could form a single "consolidated" state, which would be worse for the people's freedoms then then was the central colonial government. Thomas Jefferson in the famous Kentucky Resolutions (#8) writes against this consolidation occurring: "[We] view this as seizing the rights of the States and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as [to] cases made federal (''casus foederis''), but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent... This would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen and live under one deriving its powers from its own will and not from our authority." In his letter of 1882 to William Barry: "The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." I quote these to show, that the Fathers considered each state ''sovereign'', that is a full state, not a province or imaginary "sub-state." Indeed, Jefferson opens resolution #1 with the statement: "Resolved, That several States cvomposingcomposing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style of a Constitution for the United States... a government for special purposes -- ... reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of their right to ''their own self-government''..."

:::Just 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, consolidatedunitary 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"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, forFor 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.)

:::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, American 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.