Comments on: Secession and State Governors: An Open Letter Encouraging Self-Interest http://libertydefenseleague.com/2010/01/18/secession-and-state-governors-an-open-letter-encouraging-self-interest/ That Freedom May Live Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:20:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: HighlanderJuan http://libertydefenseleague.com/2010/01/18/secession-and-state-governors-an-open-letter-encouraging-self-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-1940 HighlanderJuan Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:05:52 +0000 http://libertydefenseleague.com/liberty/?p=665#comment-1940 Tim, Great letter and article. I have but one comment, and it is included in a quote from history professor Brion McClanahan regarding nationhood and states: ================ "I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following: Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com) State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com) How profound, statist… and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory… of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context. The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language. A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory… of a government.” By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.” ================= The complete article is found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27139558/Brion-McClanahan-The-United-States-is-Not-a-Nation There you have it. If the states are sovereign, they are nations unto themselves and the senators and congressmen sent to Washington are more like ambassadors than a part of the confederated 'national government.' What say you? Tim,

Great letter and article. I have but one comment, and it is included in a quote from history professor Brion McClanahan regarding nationhood and states:

================

“I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com)

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)

How profound, statist… and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory… of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language.

A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory… of a government.” By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

=================

The complete article is found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27139558/Brion-McClanahan-The-United-States-is-Not-a-Nation

There you have it. If the states are sovereign, they are nations unto themselves and the senators and congressmen sent to Washington are more like ambassadors than a part of the confederated ‘national government.’

What say you?

]]>