What do you think the founders had in mind when they chose this name?

In what way were the states supposed to be 'united' as ooposed to 'seperate and individual'?


Whenever I hear opposition to federal government, I ponder the question why we need to be one entity if we really wish to be fifty seperate and individual ones?

Individual states united under common cause

Separate but equal

Like black and white

Peanutbutter and jelly

I don't think they really had any idea when this nation was formed. And I believe they still don't. They are making it up as they go along.

And it shows...

now, this, I can agree on.....

Think "factions"....

Even people of the same religion have different beliefs, and while still calling themselves one religion or another, split off to practice their varying beliefs, under the same religious title, in another location to avoid conflict.

The civil war was a war for control because some people just can't let others live in peace.... it has never ended!

so perhaps, the 'Factions of North America' would be a better title for us,,,

It's all about a group banding together for the common good of the group and all the individuals in the group. A group of states, united, would have a much better chance of defeating a common enemy, England, than individual states would have had.

This also meant that individual states would have to subvert some of their wants and needs, and submit to a common leadership, in order to benefit the group as a whole.

so,,,give me the privilege of an individual


while you maintain the responsibility of providing as if I am your dependent...?

so,,,give me the privilege of an individual


while you maintain the responsibility of providing as if I am your dependent...?

It was really the united "colonies" at the time the phrase was born, but they didn't want to use that word because they were declaring their independent status. The phrase comes from the Constitution, of course, and you have to remember that the Constitution was created after the colonies had tried the Articles of Confederation and found that to be a failure. They had not been united enough.

Really none of the colonies was ever an independent "state" in the way that England or France is a state, but they were of course each created as separate entities by corporations and crown grants and such, so they were used to seeing each other as competitors, not parts of a whole. Once they could no long rely on Great Britain after the Revolution, uniting into one entity was the only way to go. The war had drained the economies of all of them (a lot of Revolutionary soldiers got land grants instead of pay, because there was no money). Plus, all the colonies were clustered together in a much smaller space than today. Reinventing themselves as one nation with a strong central government not only solved a lot of internal problems, but also made them into a nation that could be taken a little more seriously on the international stage (i.e., countries might lend them money).

Can you tell I was a History major?

they gave the states a special designation otherwise they would have just called it America..

or the federal republic of america..

or the we will wait a few hundred years when the people become fat, lazy and apathetic to take their individual rights away and create a collectivist utopia that will inevitably fail but it won't matter because we will all be dead anyway federal social nanny state of america..

Haha. Nicely put.

On a related note. Why do individual states even have their own laws, if the feds can step right in & enforce their own? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Invictus,,,,I just dont think its ever been a 'United' states, from slavery, to jim crow, to segregation, to immigration,,,,it has never been as close to ideal as people claim when they start whinging about politics,,,IMHO


Film,,,,I think thats what the supreme court is for


Brava, I can tell, but it still doesnt seem to make sense in practice the way it does in text,,,,

They were never going to be united on every single issue.

I think it was Thomas Paine that referred to the Free and Independent States of America.

You have to understand that these men wanted individual liberty.

Individual states making choices for themselves, individual people making decisions for themselves.

They wanted a limited federal government..

I believe the United is in anticipation of the states coming to agreement and ratifying the constitution..

It never meant that they would be united on all issues..

Well, we're kind of a unique country in some ways, aren't we? I mean, here was this raw nation on the edge of a huge continent that was basically up for grabs. We kicked the British out, the French were mostly gone at the same time, the Spanish never really were an issue. They put together a government and started spreading west and just kept adding on. That continuing pioneer experience became ingrained in our psyche. It's hard to think of another country where it's happened that way. By the time of Jackson the country was already so different from 1789 that I think the Founders would have had conniptions. Then the Civil War cemented us back together in practice, but there are resentments from that to this day. It's just such a big, diverse country it's actually kind of surprising that it's lasted as long as it has.

I personally think that the states' rights people are far less numerous than they sound, and that as a whole we are all much more unified than it sounds. But you don't want to get me started on the media again.

I agree with invictus yet now people want to give more and more power ti the federal government. This gives less and less power to the people. I know V for Vendetta isn't real but the our government is moving ever closer to the one in the,story. We must be careful how much power we let the government have.