Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
If we use all of your criteria as noted, than I do believe that the United Kingdom/Great Britain should be dated to 1688, the time of the Glorious Revolution. While the state may have changed its name in 1707, again in 1801 and again in 1927 the form of government that ruled has not changed. The addition/removal of territory in this case is no different than the United States and its "states". Also, if you are going to consider "Germany" as being formed in 1955 and then ignore the merger of an independent East Germany with West Germany in 1990, then why are you counting the merger of Great Britain with Scotland and later Ireland as creating a "new" entity and dating them from that time?
Most historians and political scientists universally accept 1688 as the date upon which the modern form of government in Great Britain/UK was begun. The countries had already been united under a single monarch since the 1603 Union of Crowns and the form of government established in 1688 ruled all three, even if they were not united in name until much later, they were united in fact and under the same form of government since 1688.
I guess the difference between the U.K. and say Germany or the U.S. is that the UK is a unitary state and Germany and the U.S. are federal states.
It seems to me if two states join together to form one unitary state then it must be a new state.
A state or territory can become a federated state of a federal state because it is not unitary, the federal state has supremacy over the federated ones.
I know that I am not explaining this very well, but do see why I would consider the UK a new state but not Germany.
I guess the difference between the U.K. and say Germany or the U.S. is that the UK is a unitary state and Germany and the U.S. are federal states.
It seems to me if two states join together to form one unitary state then it must be a new state.
A state or territory can become a federated state of a federal state because it is not unitary, the federal state has supremacy over the federated ones.
I know that I am not explaining this very well, but do see why I would consider the UK a new state but not Germany.
You are using a technicality to preclude the UK, despite the fact the countries were unified in 1603 and have had the same form of government since 1688. The actual unification was really nothing more than the formalization of something that had already existed for over a century. To ignore that fact can only lead one to conclude that you are purposefully trying to create a definition that place the United States as the "oldest".
That assumption is further backed up by discounting San Marino do to a brief occupation. FWIW, the Allies did not force San Marino to throw out their fascist government, they did that on their own accord following the fall of Mussolini.
Besides international law would define "statehood" as the following:
Quote:
...having a permanent population, a defined territory, a stable government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
As long as the above was maintained a "state" would have been in existence for as long as the situation persisted. The UK and San Marino both fit this definition and have done it longer than the United States if we don't add on additional baggage to the definition.
The above definition is also the reason the Holy See is not the correct answer. It is the longest unbroken government in existence, but it does not qualify as a state do to the defined territory piece of the definition. The creation of the Vatican City State in 1929 does complete the definition of statehood for the Holy See, since the Holy See controls the Vatican and it now has borders.
The United States of America is a federal republic which can add territories under the existing constitution. When Alaska for example, was added to the U.S. it was added as a federated state, it did not join together with the U.S. to form a unitary state.
The US merged with the pre-existing, fully sovereign, and internationally recognized Republic of Texas, to form one unified state. So you can only go back to 1846.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
You are using a technicality to preclude the UK, despite the fact the countries were unified in 1603 and have had the same form of government since 1688. The actual unification was really nothing more than the formalization of something that had already existed for over a century. To ignore that fact can only lead one to conclude that you are purposefully trying to create a definition that place the United States as the "oldest".
I don't think it is a technicality. Before the Acts of Unification 1800, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain each had their own parliaments and had different laws concerning regency during the "madness" of King George. Both parliaments had to approve the union. After unification there was only one parliament. That indicates to me that one state had been formed from two.
I don't really care if the U.S. is the oldest. I could accuse you of discounting the Unions of 1800 and 1707 just so that the U.S. won't be the oldest. But I won't because I don't care what your motivations are, only the quality of your argument, which is pretty good, but I just don't quite agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
That assumption is further backed up by discounting San Marino do to a brief occupation. FWIW, the Allies did not force San Marino to throw out their fascist government, they did that on their own accord following the fall of Mussolini.
There was an occupation, there is no debate there. Yes it was brief, but it was a lost of sovereignty for San Marino.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Besides international law would define "statehood" as the following:
As long as the above was maintained a "state" would have been in existence for as long as the situation persisted. The UK and San Marino both fit this definition and have done it longer than the United States if we don't add on additional baggage to the definition.
I don't disagree that there has been a state meeting that definition in the territories of UK an San Marino for all (or most in the case of San Marino) of that time, but I was trying to pinpoint the exact year of origin of current states. My argument is that the state called the U.K. before 1800 was not the same one as the state after 1800, though both are clearly states. San Marino would have one unbroken state since 1600 if not for the occupation during WW2 during which it did not meet the international definition of statehood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The above definition is also the reason the Holy See is not the correct answer. It is the longest unbroken government in existence, but it does not qualify as a state do to the defined territory piece of the definition. The creation of the Vatican City State in 1929 does complete the definition of statehood for the Holy See, since the Holy See controls the Vatican and it now has borders.
I dated Vatican City to 2000 because it adopted a new constitution.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
The US merged with the pre-existing, fully sovereign, and internationally recognized Republic of Texas, to form one unified state. So you can only go back to 1846.
No, actually Texas was annexed by the United States as a federated state. They did not join together into a unitary state.
I don't think it is a technicality. Before the Acts of Unification 1800, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain each had their own parliaments and had different laws concerning regency during the "madness" of King George. Both parliaments had to approve the union. After unification there was only one parliament. That indicates to me that one state had been formed from two.
I don't really care if the U.S. is the oldest. I could accuse you of discounting the Unions of 1800 and 1707 just so that the U.S. won't be the oldest. But I won't because I don't care what your motivations are, only the quality of your argument, which is pretty good, but I just don't quite agree.
There was an occupation, there is no debate there. Yes it was brief, but it was a lost of sovereignty for San Marino.
I don't disagree that there has been a state meeting that definition in the territories of UK an San Marino for all (or most in the case of San Marino) of that time, but I was trying to pinpoint the exact year of origin of current states. My argument is that the state called the U.K. before 1800 was not the same one as the state after 1800, though both are clearly states. San Marino would have one unbroken state since 1600 if not for the occupation during WW2 during which it did not meet the international definition of statehood.
I dated Vatican City to 2000 because it adopted a new constitution.
Supposing I agree on the UK (ignoring the fact they were all ruled by a single monarch since 1603 and hence shared the same government), which by your definition you are correct, that still leaves the issue of San Marino.
Although San Marino was briefly occupied one could argue that it remained a state as it did meet all of the conditions. The government was still intact and no one attempted to eliminate the state of San Marino or replace the government currently in power. It was simply occupied during the course of a running battle upon the conclusion of which all forces left. The issue of "relations with other states" may be questionable, but given that the government was intact, this was still possible.
There are many definitions of occupation. The German occupation of France in WW2 was a replacing of the French government with a German (or pro-German one in the case of Vichy France). Whereas there was no removal of the government in San Marino, simply an "occupation" by military units. The Germans never asserted their control over San Marino as much as the word "occupation" would imply in so much as the government of San Marino was never replaced.
I admit this is getting nit-picky, but so are some of the definitions.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Supposing I agree on the UK (ignoring the fact they were all ruled by a single monarch since 1603 and hence shared the same government), which by your definition you are correct, that still leaves the issue of San Marino.
Although San Marino was briefly occupied one could argue that it remained a state as it did meet all of the conditions. The government was still intact and no one attempted to eliminate the state of San Marino or replace the government currently in power. It was simply occupied during the course of a running battle upon the conclusion of which all forces left. The issue of "relations with other states" may be questionable, but given that the government was intact, this was still possible.
There are many definitions of occupation. The German occupation of France in WW2 was a replacing of the French government with a German (or pro-German one in the case of Vichy France). Whereas there was no removal of the government in San Marino, simply an "occupation" by military units. The Germans never asserted their control over San Marino as much as the word "occupation" would imply in so much as the government of San Marino was never replaced.
I admit this is getting nit-picky, but so are some of the definitions.
The devil is in the details. I am actually inclined to agree with you on San Marino now due to the argument above. If neither the Allies nor the Germans actually installed any kind of interim government, de facto or de jure, during the occupation, then the state of San Marino could be dated to the constitution of 1600 making it the oldest existing state by a large margin. As far as I can tell, the fascist did lose power in San Marino before the German occupation but were brought back in in a failed attempt to prevent said occupation. That leads me to believe that the governmental changes were probably not directed by the Allies.
As for the UK, sharing the same Monarch did not mean they were the same state (two crowns on one head, kind of thing). Today most of the commonwealth nations do have the same Monarch but are universally recognized as different states.
It seems to be not the oldest current state, but the oldest form of govt. still in existence. San Marino still seems to meet that criteria.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
