Page History

SCANNED PDF

Wiki MarkupOn my understanding, what Beer means by "the national theory of federalism" (aka "the national idea." or "the national perspective" \ [viii, 1\]) is that "although we are one people who enjoy a common life as one nation, we have set up not a unitary but a dual system of government. In establishing this system, the American people authorized and elnpowered empowered two sets of government: a general government for the whole, and state governments for the parts. The constitutional authority for the two sets of government is therefore coordinate. Neither created the other, and both are subject to the same legitimating power, the sovereign people. And periodically the people in this constituent capacity amend these institutions, by which in their governing capacity they direct the day-to-day affairs of the nation'" (1 f.). t case, the authority of the two sets of government would not be "coordinate," because the general government would have created the state governn1ents. us t 111ean something like _the American people as a whole_ _acting in their_ _"con~,tituent_ _sovereignty" through the_ _2{_}{_}Continental Congress to make a nation cOl1Lprised of states that would accordingly require "not a wLitary but a dual system of government."_

That something like this is indeed what Lincoln means may possibly depend on how one w1.derstands his other sentence, "Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence for them, and made theln States." In what sense, exactly, did the colonies first make the union? Did they Inake it by electing a Continental Congress through which the American people as a whole could exercise their constituent sovereignty? This seems plausible, since

I could wish I were clearer about all this than I am.

11 November 2002it was, in fact, the Continental Congress, speaking for "one people," who made the colonies states in declaring their independence.

But, then, I have a question about Beer's statement that Lincoln's justification of his use of the war power of the federal government to put down the rebellion (in his message to Congress of 4 July 1861) is "a lucid and uncompromising version of the natioJlalist nationalist view of the origins of the Republic." According to the crucial sentence in this statement, "the Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States." But what, exactly, is meant by the distinction between "the Union" and "the States" in this sentence?

Assuming the distinction that Beer 111akes makes in the passage quoted above between the two sets of goverrunent--general government—general for the whole, and state for the parts-one parts—one might not unreasonably think that Lincoln's terms refer respectively to these two levels of governn1entgovernment. In that case, however, Lincoln's statement could hardly be a version of the nationalist view, as I understand Beer to define it. For in th,lthat case, the authority of the two sets of government would not be "coordinate," because the general government would have created the state governments.

Therefore, so far as I ca.n can see, Beer's claim about Lincoln's statement can be valid only if "the Union" meclllS s0111ething means something other than the general government as distinct frOln from the other set of governments belonging to "the States." Specifically, "the Union" 111must mean something like the American people as a whole acting in their "constituent sovereignty" through the Continental Congress to make a nation comprised of states that would accordingly require "not a unitary but a dual system of government."

That something like this is indeed what Lincoln means may possibly depend on how one understands his other sentence, "Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence for them, and made them States." In what sense, exactly, did the colonies first make the union? Did they make it by electing a Continental Congress through which the American people as a whole could exercise their constituent sovereignty? This seems plausible, since it was, in fact, the Continental Congress, speaking for "one people," who made the colonies states in declaring their independence.

I could wish I were clearer about all this than I am.

11 November 2002