“The States are nations.”

Interesting observation. A nation and state differ in that a nation deals with homogeneous characteristics of religion, language, ethnicity, etc., whereas a state is a geographically defined area with a centralized and operating political center that is recognized by other states. Sadly, over time, each State within the USA is more and more considered to be a type of mere territory to one great big State called the "United States of America", instead of separate and sovereign states; Ironically, in very name, the "United States of America" was simply a unification of the several sovereign states (much like France as a sovereign state, and Germany as a sovereign state, and Italy as a sovereign state are a part of a Federalist European Union-- each sovereign state is very much separated, but shares a common federalist union wherein certain sovereignty rights are specifically enumerated and delegated to a higher source, all while trying to maintain as much autonomy to the sovereign states as possible). Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Japan are all called "Nation-States" because each of these have specific homogeneous characteristics of language, belief, and custom within a specified geographic location with a politically recognized and active political center. For Webster to say that our States were also nations is for us to believe, what would be today, almost the unbelievable. Almost total autonomy and homogeneity within each specified sovereign state! The term "The United States" was not merely a cliche or a catchy phrase, it was a bold declaration of several independent and sovereign governing political bodies that did the unbelievable and united themselves in specific and enumerated areas for the common good of all the states. The matters of individual prosperity, therefore, did not come from the "federalist" government, but by the local leaders of the sovereign states. Sad how things have changed!

Wow Logan, you're on a roll today! Yep, really clear, can't get much more plain than that.

Webster started out as a states rights politician, then became a corporate lawyer, federalist and stong supporter of the Fed. In the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830 he upheld the power of the fed, concluding with these words, "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!" Logan is correct that Nation signifies culture and ethnicity. Since all of the European settlers of the American states were generally all of the same ethnicity it would seem Webster was wrong to call states nations. If you take 1,000 souls from each of the 13 colonies and put them in Illinois for example it would be a stretch to call that group a nation. My encyl. says, State: "One of a number of political communities or bodies politic united to form one sovereign state; specifically, one of the Unted States."

PS: states in the US are bigger than many nations of the world. "Nations" of Europe have political subdivisons that are often called counties. With most of Europe now learning English as a common language it is becoming easier to see the emergence of the European nation.

Yes, they are -- read their Constitutions! Unfortunately the US government has become more 'national' than 'federal.' Has France lost its nationhood or sovereignty because it is a part of the European Union? Not yet, but the EU is united by a common fiat currency and central bank acting as a central government. The American Union was a voluntary compact, and it was well understood that should the federal government violate its charter, it was within the rights of the states to withdraw from it. To keep states from seceding (the right of which was not denied up until Lincoln's tenure), appeals had to be made to redress the grievances of the unhappy states. When West Virginia seceded from Virginia, it was done without calamity. Jefferson was prepared for New England to separate when they had expressed a desire to do so -- the threat of leaving the compact is a power any state should have when the federal power attempts too much.

You are a traitor to the Union Archer which is okay. You are loyal to what you believe in but you are a traitor to the Union. Your logic however is flawed. Once an entity gives up absoute power or authority it cannot take it back. The states by joining made a one way decision. Legally they are stuck. Now the Soviet Union would be more to your liking for just by its name it asserted that it was a union of sovereign states. The US is not a Union of sovereign states.

HA HA HA, Waffler, you ignoramus! When will you actually read your philosophy and history? The several states NEVER abdicated their sovereignty -- or rather their "absolute power or authority"! They delegated it, while resolving that each State could succeed from the Union! READ THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION'S SCRIPT!! You have NO idea what Locke and Rousseau talked about, do you?! Are you seriously this delusional?! You have stretched tacit consent to a level I could NEVER have conceived even possible. Archer's logic is not flawed, because it is a historical FACT! Please, Please, PLEASE go pick yourself up a political science book and just start skimming through it -- I would suggest you start with the PLSC 101 (just in order to pick up the basics). I can suggest a few for you, if you don't know where to go. As I talked with John Bruton several months ago, the EU Ambassador to the United States, he said that each "sovereign state" (in the EU federalism) is more than free to "succeed" from the EU, just like any "any State in the United States has to succeed from their federalism".

Speaking of ignoramususes Logan the word is secede not succeed. And you have overused the phrase 101 so many times that you are really making a bore ass out of yourself not to mention your pathethic name dropping. Have Ambassador Bruton contact me I assume that you and Archer recite the Pledge this way: "I pledge alligiance to the flag of the state ah republic of which I reside and to the voluntary union to which it has conjoined itself until further notice and to the one disparate state out of 50 disparate states, for which it stands 50 divisible nations under God with liberty and justice for all." With your expressed stupidity Logan I would shy away from reading at least the philosophy and history that you have read it has obviously fried your brain. I still say y'all are traitors to the Union if you do not believe in "the United States of America. One nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE," If you believe that it is divisible then you cannot in honesty recite the pledge. You are then a traitor to the Union. Better for you to be a traitor to the Union than a traitor to your own conscience and intellectual understanding. I am truly sorry for you and Archer's conscience and intelltual understanding. I know not how it got that way. Hell Archer believes we are still under the Articles. I truly respect your rights to wish that the United States could be divisible or that states could secede. I respect your rights to hate the Federal Government of these 50 states. I am sorry that you do not have better knowledge, logic or legal argument in order to accomplish your goals of defending secession and deconstruction of the Fed, but to rely on specious definitions, arguments and twisting of words and clear legal precedent is not the answer and does not become you.

Waffler, by your own repeated admission, you are a nationalist social democrat. In Germany, that translates into Nazi -- the worst part is that you don't even realize it. (Just like pointing out other people's spelling mistakes while misspelling the criticism. Such arrogance -- but you're just trying to help, right?) As far as pledges go, the only oath I am interested in is the one our representatives and officers must take: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." BTW, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, admitted Christian Socialist, and cousin of Socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy. The original pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America." It was originally accompanied with hand on the heart then outstretched foreward and up with palms facing outward -- just like the salute to Hitler decades later. Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue and that the United States supports the flag. Is there no end to your foibles?

Your understanding about the history of the pledge is correct. Tell Logan. If you believe that the Union is divisible rather than indivisible you are a TRAITOR to the latter notion and a traitor to the concept of the union. That is your priviledge.

Step out your door Archer, every thing is socialist. If one cites a University study the great unwashed right wing types say it is socialist. If one states a practice done in a foreign country you say it is socialist. Get over it man. Global warming is socialist.

One cannot be a traitor to a de facto, unconstitutional, nationalist, socialist government except by declaring one's independence from it. Do not confuse government with the nation -- they are 2 different things. I am glad you are waking up to the fact that the US government is as socialist as any other openly socialist government -- the problem is that socialism is the bane of freedom and completely unlawful in these United States of America. Why don't you just admit it, Waffler, and say, "I am a socialist democract and proud of it. Anyone else who doesn't join us is a traitor." Then you will see what a Nazi is really all about.

..smiles.. Ah, good catch on the mis-spell -- at least you got me on something (it's about time). As for the name dropping, I've only ever talked about two or three people -- usually as a reference to counteract your insane stupidity -- certainly not even a handful of whom I could name (but who cares); why would Ambassador Bruton call someone who has no thought, logic, and reason in his daily process? Please read a book Waffler -- start with the Greeks (Socrates, Aristotle and the like -- then onto the epicureans, stoics, etc.) and follow that into St. Augustine and Aquinas... then make your flow into Machiavelli, Luther and Calvin, Blackstone, Rousseau, Locke, Burke, and Hume. Try some Voltaire, but you wouldn't really get him unless you had a foundation in his predecessors; otherwise you'd continue to look like the moron that you've already established yourself as on this blog. As per the secession of the states: New Hampshire has threatened to do it several times in the last 5-7 years -- and Montana has already given formal notice to the federal government wherein it will leave the union if the REAL I.D. goes through against its sovereign state (and again, a formal letter was presented concerning the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the 2nd Amendment). I can reason with the reasonable, but I can't convince stupid! Why waste time on you when you don't obviously use reason, logic, and fact? Because lies told often enough become the perceived truth, and I'll be damned if I'll let the lies and false perceptions that spew out of your mouth possibly go without setting the record straight. You really are in the minority on this blog -- I find myself remembering fondly of the days when we would write on the folly of Anon from Reston and his socialist responses. At least he had a string of logic and a sustainable premise of logic; you, however, contradict yourself continuously. I am only left thinking that you actually study out what false fallacy you're going to use when you respond. You are a failure as an American -- both in thought, action, and support in the principles of what makes this country great -- If you want Democracy, move to Europe; you'll find many friends there! You will fit in particularly well in France.

Not sure why Waffler likes to come here - but it sure would be boring if he didn't! He is very good at stating the positions of the status quo, and his unconsciousness is quite prevalent in today's society. I shared his views at one time - it was considered common knowlege. But a lot of things just didn't make sense. I ran across this site a few years ago (among others) and found myself scratching my head when reading the words of my elementary school heros. All I can say is, my eyes have been opened and a patriotic fervor rekindled. Waffler, you keep it up - even if you don't ever get it, these debates do reach many who never comment (like me). I guess the world can't be too far along the road to hell if a forum like this can continue unhampered. Carry on. gents!

I'm with 'Just some guy', Waffler, keep it up, you bring out explanations and understandings that would not otherwise get expressed.

Well TX has this mindset for sure. It's sad.

Remember that Twilight Zone story where the Aliens from outer-space had a book called, "How to Serve Man", that turned out to be a cookbook? Well, I believe that the dyed-in-the-wool Progressive-Socialist Constitution Shredder and Collectivist, Waffler has a book called, "The Socialist Agenda to Shred Unalienable Individual Rights."

Is this not divisiveness? Shouldn't the states categorizing be established to keep secure, but not oppressive, tabulations on the members of our country? Shouldn't we be prepared for any catastrophic disaster or just normal operations of our country through delegates and delegation of responsibility to the respective states, but acknowledging a whole collective connectionness?