What is a State

What is a State……
For the proper definition, we turn to Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, which defines a State as…..

State c. Mode of government.
HoJIate li.’.-A Ic ;:Ani-.; v.;:f-_iii any part of the
body of I. >r;cofa
law, otbc. .^larly induced
it. StIHn.

So we see that a State is a mode of government as defined in 1755 which would have been the definition used by both the Founders’ and the Framers’ of both the Articles of Confederation and the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.

The States were established by The Declaration of Independence which declares…….

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Now we see here that the States declared themselves to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES…..Note… “States” as in plural, (more than one single State).

So we see that a “State” is a mode of government, (NOT A COLLECTIVE OF PEOPLE IN A DEFINED AREA), BUT A “MODE OF GOVERNMENT. The States declared themselves to be “Free and Independent” and that they each have the FULL power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other acts and Things which Independent “States” may of right do.

These “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES”, did in fact contract an alliance between themselves under The Articles of Confederation.

Under Article XIII of that alliance, it states that…..

“The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

So lets review what we have established at this point…..

A State is a mode of government, (NOT A COLLECTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS IN A DEFINED AREA).

The States Declared themselves to each be free and independent States, and that they each have the FULL power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other acts and Things which Independent “States” may of right do.”

These Free and independent States, then contracted an alliance between themselves under The Articles of Confederation.

Under that contracted alliance they declared that there shall be NO ALTERATION OF THOSE ARTICLES UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE = (MODE OF GOVERNMENT), CONFIRMED THE ALTERATION.

A State is a mode of government, NOT A COLLECTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS IN A DEFINED AREA, therefore, EACH STATE=EACH MODE OF GOVERNMENT HAD TO APPROVE ANY ALTERATION IN THOSE ARTICLES.

James Madison stated in a letter to Mr. Edward Everett, August 28,1830 concerning the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that…….

1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.
It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.
Being thus derived from the same source as the constitutions of the states, it has, within each state, the same authority as the constitution of the state, and is as much a constitution in the strict sense of the term within its prescribed sphere, as the constitutions of the states are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious and essential difference, that being a compact among the states in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the states

Note here that Mr. Madison has stated…..
“1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.”

But lets read the LAW as it was under the Articles of Confederation…..

“The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

NOTE….
“ unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State”

So, If James Madison’s assertion, as he stated it are true…..

“1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.”

Then CLEARLY the LAW was violated in establishing the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.

Now, IF the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, which was a COMPLETE alteration of the Articles had been CONFIRMED by every States legislature, then it was indeed a Treaty between State governments/Charter between State governments/Confederacy of States/ Compact between State governments/ AN ACT BETWEEN STATES, And as we have established via, Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, a State is a “MODE OF GOVERNMENT” Not a collective body of individuals living in a defined area, but a State is indeed a mode government established by the people living in a defined area forming a State via a mode of government. The people in defined areas established modes of government which in turn represented them in a Confederacy of States under the Articles of Confederation.

The people, do NOT constitute an elected States legislature: while the people may be the the highest sovereign capacity, the people act in concert with the law, they do NOT violate the law.

In debates over the plan of the proposed CONstitution, the Framers’ were
less than clear regarding the “sovereign” status of the states. At times the
states were referred to as “partial” sovereigns, while at other times the
Framers opined that sovereignty resided exclusively with “the people.”

Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 32 that…..

“the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not … exclusively delegated to the United States.”

NOTE…THAT, HAMILTON REFERS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Madison said that “the States will retain under the proposed Constitution a
very extensive portion of active sovereignty.”

In, No. 39, Madison declared that the federal government’s jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only,” while the states continued to
possess “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

Clearly anyone can ascertain from these words, from the “Framers” that they were referring NOT to…..

“the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”

They were clearly referring to the States as “Modes of government”.

When it came time to draft the language of the Constitution, the
Framers avoided the term “sovereignty” altogether.
The Framers were so evasive in terms of state sovereignty that there has been continual disagreement even as to the origins of consent to the Constitution. Some view the Constitution as a…..
“compact among sovereign states,”
while others have insisted that it is not “an inter-sovereign compact or treaty, but a supreme statute deriving from the supreme sovereigns, the People of the nation.”

But then a State is a Nation, a Nation, is a State: Each State as stated in the Articles, was a sovereign, a Nation…..
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Again, this was NOT a reference to the people, but rather a reference to the MODE of government which established a STATE.
It is fair to say that the occupying governments Supreme Court has, over time, been all over the map when it comes to the concept of state sovereignty, rendering opinions on “Assumption, and on the Articles of Confederation, which is stated as having been replaced by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, rather than rendering opinions based within their limited confines of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.

The early SCOTUS essentially refused to recognize the sovereignty of the states. The Marshall Court was, of course, too concerned with building a strong national government to recognize broad claims of “state sovereignty.” Thus, for example, the separate opinions in Chisholm v. Georgia all flatly rejected the state’s claim to
sovereignty causing the State governments to add the eleventh amendment to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
Justice Randolph, adopted the republican view that the people possessed ultimate sovereignty under the Constitution; the states, he said, were nothing more than “assemblages of these individuals who are liable to process.”
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the occupying governments SCOTUS pointed out that when the states joined the Union, “the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change”
However in many recent decisions, the occupying governments SCOTUS begins with the premise that the Constitution recognizes the….
“essential sovereignty of the States.”
The occupying governments SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed that the states entered the Union….
“with their sovereignty intact.”
It has stressed in no uncertain terms that the
Constitution “preserves the sovereign status of the States” by “reserv[ing]
to them a substantial portion of the Nation’s primary sovereignty, together
with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status.”

Many hold to the assertion that: “It was ‘We the People’ who ordained and established the Constitution, not ‘We the States. ”

However this assertion falls apart with close examination, which we find from Lysander Spooner’s examination of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution….

“It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor’s Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their “posterity” to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed “the people of the United States,” for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of “the people” as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as “we,” nor as “people,” nor as “ourselves.” Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any “posterity.” It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it. Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the “posterity” of those who established it.
If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.”
One cannot bind ones posterity to ones contractual obligations. If the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was as stated established by “We the people”, then it was in legal terms a contract between those living at that time, and could NOT bind their posterity anymore than one’s father could not contractually bind his son to pay off his debts when the father passes: That debt payment would come from the fathers estate, and when such is liquidated, that contract is completed, NOT CARRIED OVER TO HIS POSTERITY.
In summation, the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to either be a treaty between State governments/ a compact between State governments/ a Charter between State governments, otherwise it is of no real legal effect after the death of the last living party to what would have been a contract between “We the people” then living.
Also, it had to be a Treaty between State governments/ a Compact between State governments/ a charter between State governments, or it was indeed an illegal and unlawful act in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation…..
“ nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

As a treaty between States, secession would not be a decision left to the people of all the States, but rather to each individual State under the tenth amendment to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, however if the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, then the establishment of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a violation of law, hence every act since 1789 is the result of the poison fruit of an illegal and unlawful act.

The only legal and lawful remedy for our Southern Confederate States upon ending the occupation of the U.S. is to return to the Articles of Confederation and follow the proper legal and lawful avenue in amending those articles, hence using  20/20 hindsight to correct the mistakes that plague us at present.

James Everett Sui Juris…..

All rights reserved without prejudice

3 Responses to “What is a State”

  1. Adrian G. says:

    This is a great article. Thanks for posting.

  2. Jerry says:

    Kansas should be at least considered a territory, due to it’s history and close family ties with Missouri.

  3. Jerry says:

    Kansas should at least be considered a territory, due to it’s history and close family ties with Missouri. Maybe State of Missouri and Kansas Territory.

Leave a Reply