The "United States" vs. "America"?

The United States of America. In general, the very name of our 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 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 "State's 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 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 was the battle for state's rights - the right of states to remain the autonomous entities they originally were, 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. But a Confederacy is what the United States was always [I]supposed [/I]to be, what it was designed to be. What the South was really fighting for was to keep 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 said, "This isn't the United States of America anymore" and 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 that that is the 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. Enter the document called the Articles of Confederacy, a first draft for what would become The Constitution. Current fans of the Iraq war like to compare Iraq's problems in building a democracy with those faced by the young United States, but the comparison is invalid on many counts. First, Iraq as a country had not rebelled en masse against authority by force; their authority was defeated for them by a foreign country with its own interests in mind. Because this change did not emanate from within, there was not a pre-existing core of leaders, no "Continental Congress" from which the foundations for a new government would have been built. "Democracy" was forced upon them at gunpoint, and they were forced to work within the confines another country's structure. "Here, Iraq - we just took down the only government structure you know, now here's what you're going to do: get together, elect some people, and write a constitution. It worked for us, and since we just kicked your old government's ass, you know it's going to work for you. So do it. It's called 'Freedom and Democracy,' and we'll keep our soldiers around to make sure you're doing it right and watch your oil for you. Yeah, and we'll leave whenever you tell us, or whenever we get around to it." Authority by consent or authority by force? Some Iraqis, of course, know history, too - and they aren't down with it. Many INSURGE, much like the U.S. Revolutionary army - but now, there's more than one, and they're fighting against each other to make their own autonomous states as well as against the occupying force that started this debacle in the first place. This occupying force in Iraq is the result of the quantum consolidation of Federal power and authority by force that overtook the United States during the Civil War. It is the result of the death of the "United States" at the hands of "America." Whether we like it or not, we're Americans because we're forced to be, not because we want to be. The Federal Government has a say in every aspect of our 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 intent behind the design of the "United States" was to prevent the Federal level from overriding the Autonomy of the States. The North's victory in the Civil War was the birth of the "America" we know now, and ended the noble experiment of the "United States.” 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. 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 believe in 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. Yes, the Union made a big issue of Abolition, but managed to expand slavery instead. The ending of the oppression of blacks was the only good thing to come from the Civil War, but that too is an illusion. U.S. Grant made about as much effort to help blacks in the South during Reconstruction as Bush did in New Orleans. THIS IS HARDLY A COINCIDENCE. To be continued, perhaps...