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.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Vs
"We the People of the [u]nited States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In the first example, the Framers clearly put forth the primacy of the people, the fact that the states are not even mentioned, I believe is a very telling statement regarding the relationship of the national government, the states and the people. Had the states been viewed as having greater primacy than the national government or the people, I would contend that the Framers would have at the very least used united as an adjective rather than as part of a proper noun.
Note that throughout the Constitution, the framers used the then-common form of capitalizing all nouns, but not adjectives (a vestige of Anglo-Saxon, that is still the practice in modern German). They were not thinking at the time of the trivial detail of naming the country, but of calling the union what it was: namely, an already established number of states, that sought to unify under a single constitution. Hence, the lower case U in a word that served only to modify as an adjective the states to which the provisions were to apply.
You're trying to read something into it that was not uppermost in the objectives and intentions of the founders. Their capitalization was inconsistent throughout, and should not be relied upon to try to guess their intent. Had they capitalized the U, it would be just as unreliable to try to guess why they did.
The Constitution did not spell out whether the new nation was "these united States" or "The United States"...which is why it required a Civil War to clarify the matter.
They were not thinking at the time of the trivial detail of naming the country, but of calling the union what it was: namely, an already established number of states, that sought to unify under a single constitution. Hence, the lower case U in a word that served only to modify as an adjective the states to which the provisions were to apply.]
You're trying to read something into it that was not uppermost in the objectives and intentions of the founders. Their capitalization was inconsistent throughout, and should not be relied upon to try to guess their intent. Had they capitalized the U, it would be just as unreliable to try to guess why they did.
The Declaration uses the phrase "united States of America". Considering the weeks that the Committee of style spent pouring over the wording of the Constitution I find your argument to be less than compelling.
The Constitution did not spell out whether the new nation was "these united States" or "The United States"...which is why it required a Civil War to clarify the matter.
Daniel Webster disagreed.
Daniel Webster: Second Reply to Robert Hayne (http://usinfo.org/PUBS/LivingDoc_e/webster.htm - broken link)
Daniel Webster: Second Reply to Robert Hayne (http://usinfo.org/PUBS/LivingDoc_e/webster.htm - broken link)
The problem with Webster's approach was that the opposition was also quoting from the Constitution to shore up the states rights position. And even if there had not been language there which the South could have employed to justify secession, they would have simply fallen back on other things such as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, or Calhoun's doctrine of "concurrent majority."
The conflcit was always really about political power, not states rights. Federalism and states rights were the vehicles the contenders drove to the fight, but they were not what the actual fight was about.
Not so much with the usage as an adjective versus noun, but the wordings do point at supremacy of the people over states. Here is another example (Article IV/Section 2):
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
The problem with Webster's approach was that the opposition was also quoting from the Constitution to shore up the states rights position.
I don't see that as a problem. If neither party could quote that portion of the Constitution that which they interpret to bolster their position there wouldn't have been much to debate about.
Quote:
And even if there had not been language there which the South could have employed to justify secession, they would have simply fallen back on other things such as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, or Calhoun's doctrine of "concurrent majority."
Well that's a fact, not to mention that absent those they would have discovered some older and more ancient text.
[/quote]The conflcit was always really about political power, not states rights. Federalism and states rights were the vehicles the contenders drove to the fight, but they were not what the actual fight was about.[/quote]
When it comes to the Civil War, you know my position on that issue.
The Declaration uses the phrase "united States of America". Considering the weeks that the Committee of style spent pouring over the wording of the Constitution I find your argument to be less than compelling.
Yeah, well, they also forgot to capitalize "defense", so I find your argument that they were overly fastidious about such things to be less than compelling.
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.
