I have found myself wondering of late about the proper definition of the word state. In some of my previous blog posts I have made use of Merriam Webster online dictionary, but on this occasion I will not be quoting it.
Earlier today I visited that site, and checked the definitions of three words: state, nation, and country. I had planned to quote the definitions either in whole or in part, but I found the definitions so vague as to be not much use to me. Up until today, I would have defined these words along the following lines:
A country is a geographical area occupied by people who for the most part share a common heritage and a common culture. It has clear, recognised boundaries, and will either enjoy a degree of self-determination, or else will have done so in the past.
A nation is a country which currently enjoys a substantial degree of self-determination. My definition of the word state would be similar although not identical, and it is worth noting that the two words are sometimes linked in the phrase nation state.
Even as I write, however, I feel uneasy with the above definitions. For example, I have always regarded Wales as country, but I'm not sure if it really fits the above definition. Wales was brought together from a cluster of small states in the sixteenth century, but by a legislative process which abolished Welsh law and replaced it with English law.
Some readers might argue that the existence of the Welsh Assembly provides Wales with the degree of self-determination required for it to be classed as a country, but of course the Welsh Assembly was created by an act of parliament of 1998.
I could continue with this argument, but I will not. I am not asking the reader to decide either way whether or not Wales could have been accurately described as a country prior to 1998. I am merely observing that the question exists. I am however prepared to say confidently that I have not tended in the past to regard Wales as either a state or a nation, as I have felt that it lacks a sufficient degree of self-determination.
By contrast, Scotland is easy to regard as a country. It existed as a self-governing country for hundreds of years, and I have no problem with describing it as both a nation and a state for much of its history. In 1707 it was united with England to form a new nation called Great Britain. From that point on until 1998, Scotland continued to have its own legal and judicial system, and laws which applied in England did not necessarily apply in Scotland - and vice versa.
I have habitually regarded Scotland in this era as a country, but I have been less inclined to describe it as a nation, and I have never regarded it as a state. An act of parliament of 1998 created the Scottish Parliament, whereby I believe that Scotland has a far stronger claim to be considered a nation, although I am still unwilling to describe it as a state.
The United States of America came into existence through a succession of events in the late eighteenth century which include the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Treaty of Paris in 1783. There were initially just thirteen states, but this had increased to more than thirty at the outset of the year 1861. In that year, seven states seceded from the Union, closely followed by four others. All eleven states were forcibly returned to the union in 1865 following a war which claimed in the region of one million lives.
The USA now numbers fifty so-called states. Each one has its own legislature, but so far as I am aware, not one of them since 1865 has even discussed becoming independent from the rest of the USA. Nor so far as I am aware is there any recognised legal process whereby one of the so-called states can secede.
By contrast, an act of parliament of 2010 allowed the people of Scotland to vote for independence by referendum in the year 2014. I am not aware that anyone in the United Kingdom denies that Scotland has the right to become independent if it so chooses, and on that basis Scotland has more right to be termed a state then any of the so-called states of the USA.
Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
Independence versus devolution
Mortocracy versus democracy
A State of the United States can secede by a simple majority vote of its State legislator. That hasn't happened since our Civil War, but many elected representatives of different States have discussed it openly and even made it an issue in their campaigns just recently. No effort to secede from the United States since the Civil War has been successful, mainly because it has never been popular enough to even come to a vote.
ReplyDeleteIt would be financial suicide for a State to secede from the United States. Only New York, California, and Texas might be able to survive a cut off from the federal system. Our communal taxation system makes it almost impossible for a State to succeed and be financially successful, without that federal financial help.
Then their is the question of what happens to the federally guarded rights of an American citizen living in a State that secedes. When some States seceded from the United States before our Civil War, there was no federal right that made slavery illegal, protected blacks, or even made blacks citizens.
This is where Lincoln is rightfully accused of making unconstitutional, illegal decisions. Lincoln never took the stand that slavery was illegal, or should be abolished. His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would agree to be non-slave States.
Our Civil War decided the question of State's rights. Federal law trumps State law. A State cannot deny the federally guaranteed rights of any individual no matter where they (which State) lived. Once our federal Supreme Court decides a certain issues is a protected federal right, that is the law for all States. Same sex marriage is an example. So is integrated schools.
A person is a United States citizen first, not just a citizen of any one State. It does not matter where in the United States one lives, to have their federal rights protected.
Our Constitution states any right not enumerated by the federal Constitution is left to the States to decide. That's why issues over the years fight in the Supreme Court to get federally protected status.
This all gets legally complicated and the federal government has sent troops into States to enforce the rights of individuals. Again, the integration of schools is a good example.
I know little about the details of your form of government, but I can answer questions about our form of government.
I came across your blog through a random search and was intrigued by your post enough to respond.
Thank you for your comment, Luke. I have responded to the above comment in a new blog post.
Delete