Two Nations Instead Of One Union

In the 1830s and 1840s, Herman Melville was writing about a mad New England sea captain who felt at home only with his feet on the deck of a ship sailing the oceans of the world crazy to sooth the rage in his soul by killing a white whale. Henry Thoreau was writing about how he lived alone in the woods creating for himself his own world. Edgar Poe’s poetry sent him wandering like an ancient ship on waves of despair searching for ideal beauty. Nathaniel Hawthorne was writing about evil men with maniacal passions dominating times long past. And Ralph Emerson was giving his American Scholar lecture at Harvard College declaring that a man should conform to nothing except the universal designs of nature that send rhythms of a powerful poetry to the soul of a man bold enough to rely only on himself. Where was there even a hint of some kind of national ambiance encircling and nourishing the imaginings of such men? Yet what an unique culture grew out of the strange ambiguities of antebellum America! If only we had had honest historians and honest critics, we might have been indoctrinated in our schools by a native literature and philosophy not bound any longer by the intellectual and spiritual borders that enclosed writers in nation-states. We did not have any nation. No blooming national will added extra heartbeats to the imaginative pulse of our writers. Instead, the history of the time inspired anti national feelings. The Federal Government was supporting land speculators and slave owners eager to drive Indians from their lands and to use the new territories for slave plantations. Under President Van Buren, a treaty was approved with the Cherokees which amounted to nothing less than their forced removal from their lands in Georgia to the plains west of the Mississippi River. In April 1838,  Ralph Emerson wrote an open letter to the President in which he said, “…a crime is projected that confounds our understandings by its magnitude, a crime that really deprives us as well as the Cherokees of a country for how could we call the conspiracy that should crush these poor Indians our government, or the land that was cursed by their parting and dying imprecations our country anymore?” Abraham Lincoln declared in his Gettysburg speech of 1863 that the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had created “a new nation". Subservient historians have since blinded our eyes to the real meaning of our history. Most Americas of antebellum times did not feel a political sentiment within them that united them to a nation. They lived in a union of sovereign states and the union’s glory resided in the simple fact that it could not be united culturally or politically into a single national block. The New England novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote about “the anomaly of two allegiances of which that of the State comes nearest home to a man's feelings, and includes the altar and the hearth, while the General Government claims his devotion only to an airy mode of law and has no symbol but a flag.” Addressing national sentiment, he wrote, “I wonder that we Americans love our country at all, it having no oneness; and when you try to make it a matter of the heart, everything falls away except one’s native state.”  In 1857 Henry Thoreau, the author of Walden,  listened to a lecture by the anti-slavery abolitionist radical, John Brown, and said that it was the first time in his life that he ever felt he lived in a nation. Abolitionism was partly a substitute for national feeling. When an Abolitionist spoke at a meeting with moral inspiration against the evils of slavery, he was speaking against a foul condition of human beings that was legal according the laws he lived under but outlawed by the laws of the nation that he so ardently desired might exist but in fact did not exist. Ironically, Abraham Lincoln by starting the Civil War did give all Americans a nation, but he could not create by his machiavellian machinations one nation for all of them. By forcing Americans to fight one another, he created while the war lasted two nations, one north and one south.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0










   





 










 
    









                                                    

American Historians Join Lincoln's Revolution

Abraham Lincoln declared in his presidential inaugural speech of March 4 1861 that the Federal Government was a “national” government yet it possessed no national territory except the District of Columbia which was a stateless district. The American Constitution never uses the word “national” or “nation” or “Federal Government” anywhere. It says its purpose is to form “a more perfect union…for the united states of America” and it then enumerates powers that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the new government possess. The tenth amendment to the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Clearly the Constitution is about delegating certain powers to a central government and this would have been an odd way indeed to set up a “national” government since the powers delegated are limited. President Lincoln used the word “national” on  March 4 because his purpose was to make the Federal Government a national government. A month later on April 6, he started the Civil War and won it using his army against Americans living in 11 southern states. Winners of all major wars everywhere gain as a reward for their victory a rewrite of history purged of their misdeeds. Historians accepted Lincoln’s revolutionary view that America was a nation and then went to work to show that all American history up to Lincoln was nothing less than the germination of a nation that he pulled deftly from the womb of time and set solidly on its feet in Washington D.C..
     The English colonists from England who arrived in 1620 at Plymouth in Massachusetts became Americans and the political compact they agreed to for their small community became an embryo of democratic concepts that, according to historians, would one day be embodied in the US Constitution that established Washington as the head of a nation. Colonists in Massachusetts rebelled in 1689 for independent rule and, assembling an armed force of 1500 men, arrested the British governor Edmund Andros. According to historians, these were the first rumblings of volcanic forces that would one day roar forth in a fiery blast and form a nation. The Massachusetts colonists who fired their rifles at the British army at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and killed or wounded nearly 200 British soldiers as they drove the enemy regiments back to the safety of Boston were Americans. George Washington, a Virginian, came to Massachusetts in 1775 to take command of the New England army that historians renamed the American army. Samuel Adams, the organizer of the Massachusetts rebellion, instigated the Boston Tea Party, attended the first two continental congresses in Philadelphia, signed the Declaration of Independence, helped draft the Articles of Federation and supported the ratification of the Constitution by Massachusetts. Samuel Adams might have been elevated by historians to the level of an American hero like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson if he had not constantly and outspokenly made it clear to his fellow colonists that Massachusetts was his country. Historians did not allow anyone on their lists whose deeds could not be nicely metamorphosed as presages of the nation Abraham Lincoln’s military victory required. 
      No defined geographical area is named “America” and no nation has ever established itself, including within its borders a well-defined distinct people, on the North American continent. This fact did not stop historians from finding “America” and the “nation” wherever it was convenient. In the public schools, our history books never taught us that the true majesty and glory of America derived from the successful union of 50 sovereign states with open borders and democratic governments. We were educated as though it were a matter of indifference if we happened to live in Massachusetts or Louisiana. Washington was the head of a nation but it had never built and funded a public school or university in any state, it had never built and funded a public hospital in a state, it had never built and sustained state roads or state transportation systems, it had never established and maintained libraries outside of the District of Columbia, it had never established and funded police and fire services outside the District of Columbia, it had no power to register births and deaths because a United States citizen can be born and die only in one state of many states, it had no power to marry couples under civil law, it could not incorporate banks and corporations, and it had also nothing to do with hundreds of  professions and public organizations and public activities that were governed by state authority. No one taught us that the state we happened to live in had power to do everything necessary for the public good as in any other state anywhere in the world except that it had no power to wage war or conduct diplomatic activities with other states. The armies of historians who followed Lincoln had done their job. Since we had a nation, it was none of our business to open our eyes and see that an extraordinary unfolding and development of humanity into a new revolutionary political system unlike anything in its past had happened among us.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0







   





 

Jihadism and Colonialism

Jihadism is European colonialism in reverse. The main European nation-states invaded territories all over the globe and created a very strong sense within their states that their peoples were a superior race. The European nation-states became racist states by continuous war against weaker colonized peoples. They created unity at home by subjugating foreign peoples who were not white. Just as jihadists today use one religion to the exclusion of all others to reinforce their racist war, so did the former imperialist nation-states. Britain made Protestantism a national religion that it spread throughout its colonies. Spanish and French and Belgian colonialism used  Catholicism as a part of their colonial ideology. Any type of simplistic joining of religious power and political power directly supported colonial wars to conquer the world and steal its wealth. Jihadists are not white Caucasians and this helps make them in their minds one race and by adopting a simplistic exclusive interpretation of one religion against all other religions, they give themselves a solid psychological foundation, like the 19th century white imperialists, to make war on an enemy white race. No need to speak of Hitler’s imperialistic murderous racism except to say that it was 19th century European imperialism carried to the extreme and that it has reappeared in the jihadist ideology.
    Murderous individualistic jihadist terrorism has found a target for its bombs and bullets in the soft belly of European nation-states. Nationalistic humanistic cultures developing above some religious foundation and unified further by some national language were once the vital heartbeat of Europe. We can not say that these cultures are gone but where they are still alive, they are weak and sickly. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was a knife driven into the back of a living element of French culture, its wit. But what do France and other European nation-states have beyond their wit? Vital religions? Arts and literatures in step with new developments of nationalisms reaching forward towards new brilliant creative outbursts? European cultures have whittled themselves down to defending themselves with penciled comic pictures against the inhuman racism of the jihadists at war on European streets armed with Kalashnikovs.
     Only some new form of expansion of European and American cultures and political systems that is not grounded in any religion or any racism or any old-style colonialism can prevent jihadism from taking root worldwide. 29 nation-states with the remnants of European national cultures exist in a union in Europe. If each of these states became a state in the American union, our union of 79 states would mean the end of all wars on our planet forever. The 50 states of America will not have a white majority in the near future so that there would be so many new creative opportunities for citizens of all colors in our worldwide community that jihadism would seem to us no more than a nuisance.  Jihadists could still attack us from within but we would be so strong and so confident in the vital creative strength of our revolutionary new world  that we could swat away jihadist attacks as though their warriors were flies.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0



 
 










 
    









                                                    

Terrorism and the New Rome

A terrorist massacre in Paris, a terrorist state in Iraq and Syria, more than a 100,000 illegal immigrants in Italy. What is the link between these events? They are the result of education and prosperity reaching only a minority of people in the world. The only real solution is providing education and prosperity for everyone in the world. The political system necessary to start the long and difficult fight to eliminate ignorance and poverty worldwide already exists in the United States. Yet we Americans waste our time and money trying to solve the problem by military means alone as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy without corruption is an essential weapon in the war for worldwide education, freedom and prosperity that we, the prosperous people of the world, must fight. We Americans must eliminate in our public talk and in our minds the myth that we are a nation like other nations. We have the power under the Constitution to act as a nation when dealing with foreign nations but it is false that we are but a mere nation. We have added 37 new states to our union since 1789 and we must add many more to kill poverty both in the United States and in the world. Entrance to our union of democratic states offered to all the states of the world is not just a way to defeat ignorance and poverty worldwide, it is the only way. No nation-state has ever had the American political experience of setting up new state after new state  and giving each a strong central government ordered by its Constitution to provide every state in the union with a democratic government and protection  from corruption and military invasion. Who is better prepared to give new states secure borders than we with our powerful army, navy and air force already positioned worldwide? What advanced economy  better than our economy could infiltrate and update the economies of new states? Would our powerful banks and our highly sophisticated Federal Reserve central banking system somehow block economic growth in new states? We have thousands of college graduates who could find careers in newly admitted states as teachers. We have thousands of small-business owners with advanced technical know-how who could easily move to new states and create jobs. Any state that joins our union will attract investors from all over the world who know that their investments will be backed financially and militarily by the American government just as it now backs investments in the present 50 states. Washington D.C. will become even more powerful with the addition of new states but it deserves additional power because it is the world’s new Rome and history has taught us to keep Rome as powerful as possible or ignorant barbarians will destroy the civilized world.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0














 
    









                                                    

Low-cost Terrorism and Global Union

Any terrorist with a European passport can get on a low-cost flight to a Moslem country, contact fellow terrorists and be back in a European city the next day to cause barbaric harm. Rome set limits to its Empire to keep barbarians out but our globalization with the spread of advanced technologies lets them in and out of democratic nations easily and secretly. When the Roman empire fell, civilized conduct survived only in castles and walled towns. We need for our terrorized and globalized world some radical new form of security for peaceful and civilized intercourse among people within a state and with people outside in other states. Modern technologies are all about new efficient practices and advanced communication but they produce also barbarities and evil penetrations. Modern civilized European nation-states created grand armies to keep beyond their borders the grand armies of other civilized nation-states. The European Union has stripped its nation-states of their borders but ironically they were more civilized with them. The disease of terrorism is a cancer that threatens the death of democratic practices in any state that will not make itself healthier in a globalized world by escaping its sick condition as an isolated state. We have to build globally states that are castles of freedom and democracy, but castles who dare to empty sometimes their moats and pull up their drawbridges because united with all the other democratic castles on the globe in a political union. States in a union of states can exist securely like medieval castles anywhere on the globe. The military directed by the central government of the American union in Washington D.C. has supplies stored on a Pacific island necessary to help defend South Korea’s borders. Real security in modern states located all over the globe can only be produced by the powerful central government of a global union. The security that most states produce for themselves is not strong enough to secure a democratic government. A global union of states will be not only a weapon against invasion from without and from terrorism within but also a union in which democracy will be enforced within states by the same central government that also secures their defense.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0













 
    









                                                    








                                                                      

Greece The 51st State?

What Greece needs is a modern and dynamic banking system that will liberate its people to create small and medium-size businesses. Instead, it is imprisoned in a European-union banking system with a central bank in Germany that is not much more modern in the way it lends money to private banks than central banks in the 19th century enslaved by the gold standard. The admission of Greece by the American Congress as an American state would allow Greece to convert all its euros to dollars, a simple transaction, and allow its private banks to join the Federal Reserve banking system of the United States. The central government of the American union of states does not directly control banks in states. It frees them to create the union’s money supply. The Federal Reserve system is a hybrid system, both public and private, both centralized and decentralized. It gives private bankers unheard-of freedom to create money and it provides strong guarantees for solvency with very limited central control. Its structure is unique among central banking systems very much as the centralized-decentralized structure of the governmental system of the United States is  radically different from nation-states. The Federal Reserve system is set up just as though the Federal Government in Washington wished to have as little to do as possible with the money supply. Private banks place deposits they receive from customers or money they borrow from a Federal Reserve bank in an account with a Federal Reserve bank and create multiples of money through loans to businesses sometimes 900 percent greater than the value of their deposits. Greece needs also to give its people the freedom to move and live worldwide by giving them the right to live and work and have full political rights in any one of the 50 states of America as well as the state of Greece. The American Constitution gives the American Congress the right to pass a bill and admit a new state. Greece, the inventor of democracy, needs to stabilize its democracy at home and free its citizens by getting rid of the limitations of its present union which is preventing its free development. 

Daniel McNeill

 




   

Lincoln Was The Problem

On July 4th 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, both John Adams of Massachusetts and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia died. The two had worked together during the rebellion to keep their colonies and the other colonies united against Britain. They both served as president of the United States and kept up a friendly relationship with one another communicating by letter until their deaths the same day. In 1826, 24 states were in the union. For historians of the period from 1814 to 1861 when the Civil War began, the union’s extraordinary and rapid growth should have been their main theme, but instead they focus on a trend they discovered in the union towards nationalism and contrast this with what they call sectionalism. A union of 24 states stretched out over a continent the size of Europe, each with sovereign powers, would naturally be expected to have separatist tendencies but none of any importance emerged. New England was a strong and prosperous area with a Protestant body of English-speaking people and a cultural unity based on 200 years of common history. But New England considered secession from the union and then rejected it. Historians however seize its tendency towards secession as a strong example of sectionalism. Virginia is cited as sectionalist because it considered itself a sovereign state and opposed decisions of the Supreme Court that reduced its sovereignty. The Supreme Court held that the states had not full but limited sovereignty and the court’s increase of power is cited by historians as the correct tendency of the union, one towards nationalism. But the actions of both New England, the home of Adams, and Virginia, the home of Jefferson, both give evidence of the firm sense of sovereignty that was powerfully alive in the states before the Civil War. And there were now 24 of them. Both Adams of Massachusetts and Jefferson of Virginia would have been shocked to learn that the revolutionary democratic union that they had helped create was somehow transforming itself, according to historians, from a union to a nation-state. What could motivate historians to tell the story of a rise of national power in the government in Washington D.C., which was neither fully sovereign nor a state, rather than the extraordinary birth of 24 free democratic states all with the same degree of sovereign power as that exhibited by the New England states and Virginia? The answer is that historians write with a view ahead to what will happen on April 6 1861, the start of a civil war between two groups of states. Historians must show somehow, even through the actual history of the period does not show it, that seeds of division between sections of the union were developing that inevitably would burst forth into civil war. In reality, the union was sound and developing magnificently. There were sectional tensions in the union but the union was not the problem. The union did not cause the Civil War. One politician, Abraham Lincoln, caused it. Lincoln was the problem.

Paste either of the following URLs in your browser to go to the book, The United States Of The World, by Daniel McNeill on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

http://www.amazon.com/The-United-States-World-development/dp/1499534639/ref=tmm_pap_title_0