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 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.).

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 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 makes in the passage quoted above between the two sets of government--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 government. 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 that case, the authority of the two sets of government would not be "coordinate," because the general government would have created the state governments.

...