The United States of the World​​
The world must establish in Washington in the District of Columbia a strong central world government uniting states under a constitution that will allow all its citizens to live magnanimously and freely in one worldwide union of democratic states.
The United States of the World, The Theater of the Impossible, The End of All Beginnings, books by Daniel McNeill, are for sale at:

Heading 3

                                World Unity​​

        Arguments For a United States Of the World
                                 ​Daniel F. McNeill
​     The shots fired at British soldiers at Lexington and Concord in 1775 meant that in North America only Canada would develop within the British Empire and the vast lands to the south would develop on their own. The colonists, subjects of the King in London and his Parliament, jumped into the unknown. The defeat of the French at Quebec in Canada in 1763 meant that the whole of North America north of Mexico might have been governed by one body of men in a Parliament in London much as the Roman Empire had been governed by one body of men, the Roman Senate. Local rule would have evolved in the British Empire so that today Canada and the US might have been united in a vast continental union of states with local democratic governments much as in the present provinces of Canada. If the British Empire worldwide had survived up to the present time, a large worldwide union of democratic states would now exist with some kind of central government somewhere where elected representatives from all the English-speaking states would gather to make universal laws binding in their worldwide union guaranteeing universal citizenship, universal democracy, and universal unalienable human rights. This is what we are for, a United States Of The World. The British colonization of the world began a great worldwide union of peoples and it is up to us Americans to finish the job. The central government of the new worldwide union, a government with limited sovereign powers, is  already established in a location, Washington in the District of Columbia, that is not a national territory. How can anyone in our world that has been tragically torn apart in the past by wars begun by nation-states and that is being tragically torn apart today by civil wars within nation-states not see that the worldwide union of all states is a necessity and is a real possibility? It can be begun today by some nation-state petitioning the Congress in Washington to become another state of the United States. All the states of the world need to jump into the unknown as we Americans did in 1776 when we declared our independence from Britain.


​     The continent of North America had no nation anywhere when the first European colonists arrived in the sixteenth century. This made subjection of the natives and colonization easy. The Spanish conquerors of Mexico met an empire with a central government in Mexico City but some conquered tribes eagerly aided the Spaniards crush the empire. States developed in North America as they had in Africa during the nineteenth century. European nations conquered the natives and outlined on maps the boundaries of their colonies. The colonies then became states when the Europeans departed. The states in Africa are now nations enclosed within frontiers established by Europeans. In North America, the Europeans left behind colonies that became at their departure provinces or states but not nations. British rule continued in Canada and united its peoples but Canadians did not begin thinking of their country as a nation until late in the twentieth century. The thirteen American colonies declared themselves sovereign states in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 which reads “that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” Several factors unified the thirteen states, the common use of English, their common location along the Atlantic Ocean, the common slavery of black Africans and indentured whites, the military threat in their western areas from Indians, and their eight-year war with Britain. When freed from Britain, the thirteen new American states were already unified well enough to fix their union by law by the ratification of the Constitution. But it is implicit in the Constitution that every state is sovereign and that the sovereign powers granted the new government in Washington derived from the sovereign powers of the states. Put simply, the conundrum was that the Federal Government could not have obtained limited sovereign powers unless they had been obtained from some prior absolute sovereignty belonging to the states which the Constitution also limited. The 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. Clearly the Constitution is about delegating certain powers to a central government and this would certainly have been an odd way to set up a “national” government since the powers delegated are limited. However over time as the union expanded and faced wars and with the challenge of keeping the union strong, many historians found it convenient to find evidence for America being a nation going back all the way to the landing of English colonists at Plymouth in Massachusetts in 1620. Their point of view is false. The only true line to follow to understand American history is the unity that evolved among colonists and immigrants that produced over time a glorious union of states, a union which was not a nation and never became a nation.


​    Today in an interview on French television, Jean-Luc Melenchon, the founder of the Left Party (le parti de Gauche) said that France was governed by a presidential monarchy (une monarchie presidentielle). He suggests what we believe, that old-fashioned democracies in nation-states like France don’t work for most citizens and don’t work at all for those at the bottom. A postmodern state must govern  from the top down but its citizens must have enough influence from the bottom up to cancel laws that are unjust or that violate their unalienable rights. A mechanism that the American system uses to broaden democracy is judicial review. Rather than only protesting against unjust laws in the streets, Americans also challenge them in courts. Our Constitution of 1789 allows us to appeal beyond the power of all our governments to state and federal courts who can rule any law invalid guided by universal principles of justice embodied not only in the words of Constitution but also in several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees to all citizens in any state freedom of speech. Neither the Federal Government nor any state can make any law or take any action that prevents the exercise of this freedom. Democracy at all levels in all our many governments is compulsory and all the laws of all our governments are made by officials ruled by the dictatorship of the higher universal law that all humans possess unalienable rights. This type of top-down and bottom-up democracy can not exist in nation-states because their absolute sovereignty makes them too top-heavy to let their power sift down to those powerless at the bottom. Don’t think however that we Americans have never had presidents who acted like monarchs. It has just been more difficult than in France because our central government is not fully sovereign and the government of France is.


    We the people of the present 50 united states have national patriotic sentiments like those of people of other nations. History has taught us however that a union of states free of tyrants and corrupt politicians with a central government willing to fight anywhere in the world for the survival of freedom, as President Kennedy declared in his inaugural address of 1960, is more important than nationalistic sentiment. Two hundred and thirty-nine years ago, in 1775, the state of Massachusetts on its own put an army in its fields to fight for its independence from Britain. Independent eight years later because of military help from other colonies and France, John Adams of Massachusetts refused national sovereignty for his state and instead opted for limited sovereignty and interstate union. Adams, the second President of the United States, once described a man in the continental congress who was much less radical than himself as “piddling” because he opposed his magnanimous vision of America’s future. No doubt some will reject our vision of a future United States Of The World. People of some states will say that they have no need of world union with the 50 American states and other states because they already enjoy as fully sovereign states a form of world union under the protection of American power. We consider their view piddling. Some citizens in American states, which already contain citizens of every race and religion from every nation of the globe speaking most world languages as well as English, will perhaps fear the end of the white race as a majority in America. We consider their view piddling. The world must get rid of all racism, all religious bigotry, all fanaticism, all national borders, all terrorism, all ignorance, all intolerance, all poverty, all tyrants, all corrupt politicians, all injustice or else we will all become “piddling” people and we will never have somewhere a strong central world government uniting us all under a constitution that will allow us to live magnanimously and freely in democratic states and to once again make our world green.


​    What are we Americans going to do? We  possess the most successful and the most radical political system ever created on earth for guaranteeing by law democratic governments for our states. Our union of states has been the main source of exceptional economic development for our citizens. Are we going to sit back and do nothing to help the rest of the world enjoy the benefits of the system that we enjoy and that nation-states in the world now need? Washington gained great power for itself internally and externally in the twentieth century but it is false and wrong for us to believe that this power must necessarily be used only to dominate our states and to influence openly and secretly foreign states throughout the world. Washington’s worldwide power is precisely a condition necessary to produce freedom and goodness for us and everyone else in the world because only great worldwide power can guarantee freedom and universal human rights worldwide. The Washington government is also the only well funded independent powerful organization existing in the world that has the material means and the political power to reduce and eliminate threats to the world’s environment like global warming. What to do? We must be loyal to Washington and support its actions around the world. We must accept in good faith whatever our Supreme Court decides is a just law of our perpetual union. But we and peoples worldwide can not hide from the fact that Washington is the new Rome. We are all dependent on it already to greater or lesser degrees for our world’s welfare. Our loyalty to Washington should not require us Americans to do nothing. We must make America begin listening to voices that come not only from Washington but also from the heart and soul of what American history has made us, a union of sovereign states. We must bust out of our comfortable mental bubble and realize that the economy of our union of states can become expansive in a revolutionary and positive way if we lighten the national responsibilities of Washington and give it the burden of interstate leadership on a worldwide scale. Our job is to invite all states in the world to join our union of states in order to assure by our laws and our Constitution their existence as democracies and their economic development.


​    If some poor state in Africa applied to the American Congress and was admitted to the American union, the fifty-first state would immediately be a part of an advanced political and judicial system that would revolutionize its governmental structures. But there would not be some massive overnight change. Its state government would still be its state government. Its army would become its state police or its soldiers could join the US army. The US Department of State in Washington would make known to all states worldwide that the new state is an American state. The new state would be safe from any military invasion from without and free from corruption and dictatorship from within. Its banks would join the Federal Reserve banking system and loan money with security and sophistication using advanced banking principles. Naturally some enemies of our union’s expansion will say that this is nothing more than a new form of the old imperialism. Let them say it but the new state will be open for business ready to receive capital and investments from businessmen from all the states in the world. What corporation or business would be afraid to invest in the new American state with its currency now converted to the dollar and its economy totally secured by the military, political and economic power of Washington? And what kind of imperialism is it if citizens from the new state would be free to work and live and vote and be educated or run for office in any of fifty-one states worldwide? The people of the poor “colonized” state  would elect two senators for the Senate in Washington and several congressmen for the House of Representatives in Washington. How many men or women in colonized African states were elected to the Parliament in London and traveled to London to vote for laws for the British Empire? How stupid it is to say that a new wondrous burst of freedom for a poor state is but a new form of imperialism! It’s a new superior form of political and economic organization that some states in the world need desperately. But since some will use one word like imperialism to describe a complicated process, we will also describe the daring adventure of the poor African state too with one word, one closer to the truth, freedom.


    The US  government has always governed very little or not at all. It has never built and funded a public school or university in a state. It has never built and funded a public hospital in a state. It has never built and sustained state roads or state transportation systems. It has never established and maintained libraries outside of the District of Columbia. It has never established police and fire services outside the District of Columbia. It has never registered births and deaths so that no US citizen has ever been born or died in the US. It has not married couples under civil law and has no power to do so. An American becomes a citizen of the state where he is born and automatically also a citizen of the US. However, he is born in a state, educated by a state, hospitalized in a state certified hospital, transported on state roads and transportation systems, married by a state, judged mostly in state courts, guarded by state police, protected by state firemen and dies in a state with his money deposited in a state bank. The lack of a great deal of action in our states by our central government is perfectly normal and a good thing. We want to govern ourselves. The Federal Government has plenty to do unifying our states, keeping them honest and democratic, and fighting to keep states worldwide safe for democracy. Our Constitution assigns our central government exclusive sovereign power only over all military and diplomatic activities. Most of its powers to act in internal matters are limited by the Constitution. HenryThoreau wrote in his great essay Civil Disobedience, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ ” No  officials of our central government are anarchists like Henry Thoreau, but their limited constitutional powers encourage them to rule us as little as possible. Where will states find a better central government for a united states of the world than the one already existing in the United States?


   The American Constitution states clearly that the Congress of the elected representatives of the 50 states possesses the power to admit new states. Since the United States began in 1789 with the acceptance of the Constitution by 13 states, 37 new states have been admitted. The Federal Government’s role as a national government would not change as long as some states in the world choose to remain independent and to retain their unlimited sovereignty. The people of newly admitted states would be citizens, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment to the American Constitution, both of the United States and of the state where they choose to establish residence. However, as the world role of the Federal Government increases with more and more new states, its national role would decrease. This is happening already for, since the end of the Second World War, the Federal Government’s world responsibilities have made it less and less able to concentrate on purely national goals. The limitations on sovereignty that apply to the present 50 states would also apply to new states although these limitations would tend to decrease as the number of new states increases. Who does not see that dictatorial governments scattered all over the world, ruled by politicians with rapacious designs on their own national wealth and indifferent to real democracy and to glaring world problems, must go? Limitations to national sovereignty are the necessary conditions for the establishment of genuine democracy and for the establishment of a world government capable of dealing with world problems. In the future, the central world government located in Washington in the District of Columbia will guarantee unlimited democracy to states in exchange for their acceptance of limited sovereignty and all states will be guaranteed also full democratic representation in the government of the world government.


    More than eight hundred years ago, middle-class merchants and craftsmen in Europe escaped from feudal oppression by establishing themselves in towns and by guarantying their new free independent way of life with written laws. Entrepreneurs from this class made technological advances in the means of production over a long period of time that radicalized economic, social and political relations. Eventually this new middle class of merchants and lawyers, the bourgeoisie, created national states, first as limited monarchies and then as democracies, to protect by laws and constitutions the property and riches of the few from the working class. American foreign policy since the Second World War has continued to seek this governmental protection of the rich at the worldwide rather than just at the national level. All revolutions are destructive but it is still possible to create a positive result of the middle-class revolution of the past if we carry its momentum further by creating a new world order that protects by law not just the worldwide freedom of the rich but the worldwide freedom of everyone. We must make an orderly transition to a new glorious condition of our world by adding states to the American union whose people will send representatives to the Congress in Washington and guarantee by the power of law both the interstate inviolability of multinational corporations and the inviolable right of the workers of the world to free interstate movement and free interstate citizenship.


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, the pursuit of Happiness, and Citizenship in a democratic state of their choosing. To secure such rights, Governments should be instituted among men with limited sovereign powers in order to prevent politicians from assuming dictatorial powers. Until the present century, independent national states required unlimited sovereignty to form national armies capable of defending states from attacks by enemy states. In the 50 united states of America, state armies are both unnecessary and illegal. In independent national sates throughout the world, national armies have become less and less necessary because the American Federal Government has assumed the responsibility of protecting foreign states from interstate wars. It backs up this responsibility at a cost of nearly 600 billion dollars a year by maintaining more than two and a half million personnel in its armed forces, military bases throughout the world, and a naval fleet present in every ocean. By joining the 50 united states as newly admitted states, national armies of new states, which sometimes are used to repress the democratic rights of their people, will become obsolete. The Federal Government of the 50 united states of North America and the Pacific Ocean has already assumed some duties of a world government partly to prevent laws and policies of national states from impeding the freedom of multinational corporations to conduct business worldwide unrestricted by national boundaries. As national states apply for admission to the American union to the Congress in Washington and are accepted by the Congress, the transition of the United States of America to the United States of the World would become gradually a reality. This extensive new world union would guarantee a democratic government in every state and make more and more secure and more general the movement throughout the world of labor and capital wherever opportunities for employment draw them.


    When American banks created and lent out over $8 billion in real estate loans to people unable to pay their mortgages, it lead to a terrible worldwide economic depression in 2007. The American union of states and the European Union faced a crisis and had to take action. The American government in Washington possessed a Congress with full constitutional power over a huge inflow of tax monies of more than  $4 trillion. It also received an inflow of billions of dollars yearly from US bonds sold worldwide mostly to foreign banks. Congress allowed one gigantic bank to fail and rescued another by borrowing $250 billion and loaning funds to it to save it. Between 2008 and 2012, the Federal Government borrowed almost $6 trillion to spend and stimulate economies nationally and internationally. President Bush in 2008 created a $168 billion stimulus package and President Obama created one in 2009 worth $787 billion. Federal Reserve Banks, banks of a central banking system independent of any government, dropped their discount rates for loans to banks so low that they were nearly giving out money free of charge to private American banks to use to back loans to businesses to stimulate the economy. The massive supply of money the US government injected into the American and worldwide economy drastically reduced the value of the US dollar. The European Central Bank of the European Union, located in the German nation-state, did the opposite. Germany fought pitilessly using the central bank’s power to force private banks in other states of the European Union to restrict credit and thus stop the needed expansion of the money supply. Germany forced other nation-state governments in the EU to reduce public spending benefiting their citizens and to introduce measures of austerity that eliminated jobs. The American central government acted like the head of a real union of states by creating and spending money massively year after year to stimulate its own economy and the world economy. Germany used the European Union as though it were not a union of states at all but just one big state ruled by Germany. It fought to control the value of its own wealth by refusing to devalue the Euro and thus create higher demand for products throughout Europe and more jobs. A union of states that has no independent central government constituted to use its power to aid all its states and instead can be manipulated selfishly by one state is not much more than an association of sovereign states of little value in an economic crisis.


     As the leader of the free world, the American Federal government has been trying since the Second World War to unite the world by influencing  governments of nation-states to be democracies and at home it does not allow states in the American union to be anything else. It has great worldwide power partly because most of the work of government in the US is routinely done by state governments. This frees Washington to pursue political goals on an international as well as on a national level. In any union of states, sovereignty must be divided between states and their central government. Sovereignty is already divided in the American union between the 50 states and the Federal Government so that only the American political system already possesses the framework that would be necessary in a world union.
   We  Americans have been living with the task of setting up and living with a central government of an interstate union with limited sovereign power since the eighteenth century. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, two other grand unions of peoples were prominent. Britain ruled an empire at the start of the Second World War with 458 million people, one fifth of the world’s population, in colonies, dependencies and territories worldwide. The  other large union of states other than the American union was the Soviet Union which had 15 states. The American and Russian unions united with the British Empire and the 3 allied global powers destroyed fascism in Europe and won the Second World War. After the war, the Cold War was a struggle between the American and Soviet unions. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the British Empire, only the US union survived with its political system unchanged. Its central government is not only a great power struggling to unite the world for peaceful and democratic development but also has the political structure to be the central government of a worldwide union of states because it is  not a state, is not located in a state, and is not sovereign.


    No state that petitions the American Congress to join our union should believe it is about to enter a political and economic paradise. America is not heaven and it is often hellish to live in America if you can’t find a good job. But in whatever condition you find yourself, America does supply you with democracy and unalienable rights. Some of our states have been democracies since 1787 and all of our 50 states are now solid democracies. They are democratic because they choose to be democratic but also because the Federal Government must by law not allow them to be anything else. Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Full sovereignty in a state means that citizens must obey laws without the power to challenge them. Every law passed by any of our American governments at any level can be challenged in courts and overturned. France used its sovereign power to establish by law same-sex marriage in 2013. In 2004, the supreme court of the state of Massachusetts heard an appeal from a judgment in a lower court against  same-sex marriage and ruled that Massachusetts did not have the right to deny marriage to anyone. A democratic nation-state like France awards citizens rights from a top-down position of supreme sovereign power. In a state like Massachusetts with limited sovereignty, democracy operates both top-down and bottom-up. One citizen, challenging a court’s judgment against same-sex marriage, established from the bottom-up the universal right in Massachusetts for all its citizens to marry.


    A look at the map of the United States with a basic knowledge of key events in American history should convince anyone that an extraordinary revolutionary unfolding and development of humanity unlike anything in its past somehow happened on our continent. Our rebellion against Britain would never have succeeded unless she decided finally to let us go and be rid of us.  She was tired of trying to conquer and rule crude uneducated swarms of white men with their black slaves scattered about in a vast wilderness. Britain understood that humanity’s adventure in America would never work. She let us go free to learn for ourselves that we were condemned in advance to futility. She took Canada instead of America and was sure that something would stop the swarms of humanity to the south moving west, the wilderness or the Indians or the Mississippi River or the French and Spanish territories. We would never reach the west coast and the Pacific Ocean and what kind of government could ever rule and dominate such vast swirls of humanity of every race coming from all over the world and always on the move west in spite of the great overwhelming difficulties? Well, the most amazing event in our history was the creation of a political system that establishes the most free and the most just distribution of political power that has ever ruled or ever will rule humanity. Britain got rid of us once and for all and we got rid once and for all of the nation-state. Not one of our fifty states will ever be a nation and our grand and just and powerful government in Washington will never be a state! Good-bye nation-state! You strangled humanity to death for centuries but you will never get your deadly grip on peoples in the states of our union or in any new state that joins us!


    Can anything be more ridiculous than Italy giving up its sovereignty by becoming a US state? No, but Italy would keep its sovereignty. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote that the powers of the Federal Government “are few and defined” and those of the States are “numerous and indefinite”. The US states possess sovereignty, their Federal Government does not. The states, by laws established in the Constitution, have given the government in Washington D.C exclusive sovereignty only over military matters and international diplomacy. Italy would give up its right to make war and would disband its diplomatic corps. Its central government in Rome would continue passing laws as before but a few laws that are judged by federal courts to be contrary to the Constitution could be cancelled. Generally, this means Italy could not pass laws contrary to basic unalienable human rights that should be guaranteed to citizens in any state anywhere in the world. Washington also has the power to regulate commerce but its income of over 5 trillion dollars a year is based on letting businessmen operate freely with a few fundamental regulations necessary for a prosperous and honest economic system. Italy would go on much as before but it would send elected representatives now to 2 democratic governments, one in Rome and one in Washington. Its citizens, according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, would be “citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”  Italians who choose to live in Italy would therefore continue to be Italian citizens.


   Italy needs to modernize its economy to compete better globally but the truth it must face is that no state can solve its economic problems and create for itself a dynamic new prosperity by remaining a sovereign nation. Nations are set up to solve problems top-down and within national borders but postmodern solutions require also a transnational approach. The Italian auto company Fiat stopped acting nationally within Italy and in the European Union and boldly bought Chrysler which gave it the right to do business also across the borders of 50 American states. It is now a political and economic player in the EU and in the US as well as in Italy. Fiat has boldly freed itself from economic slavery within the national borders of Italy. It operates freely without interstate tariffs in 78 states worldwide. Why not solve the serious economic problems of Italians by giving each the political right to operate like Fiat outside of their national borders?  
    The American Constitution reads in Article IV, Section 3, “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union.” Italy the fifty-first state? Unthinkable! Absolute total nonsense! Just imagine Italy accepted by the American Congress so that 61 million Italians, who have now the right to work where they wish in 28 European states, would gain the legal right to live and to work and to vote and to run for public office and to become citizens in any one of 51 states in North America and on the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean as well as in Italy merely by taking up residence in one of them! Why is such a state thinkable for Corporations like Fiat but unthinkable for Italians? It would be a revolution! It would begin to shake up national structures in the postmodern world on a scale like the conquest of Gaul by Caesar in the ancient world. But it would be a secure revolution. Investment money would flow into Italy from investors worldwide because they would know that Italy as a US state is a secure democracy backed by the US Federal Government’s military, judicial and economic powers. Italians affected badly by their Jobs Act would be free to move to fifty new states to seek opportunities not found in Europe or in Italy. All it requires is a referendum in Italy. If Italians vote yes and the American Congress passes a bill admitting Italy as a state, a new world will be born with the city of Rome again a grand presence in a vast territory of united peoples.


   The American central government in Washington has been supporting a worldwide network of states for more than a hundred years. Under its protection, some nation-states have achieved democracy and prosperity by specializing in certain industries and using the world as a marketplace. American businessmen have exported their capital and their industries all over the globe. The worldwide capitalistic organization of the world is an ongoing business. But globalization is destabilizing nation-states. The nation-state has lost its main function, the protection of its citizens from invasion. Now wars are being fought within nation-states, not between them. The world needs solidly established states with democratic governments free from corruption and civil war. The Federal Government guarantees each of our American states a democratic government and protects each from invasion. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them from invasion”. The transformation of the United States of America to the United States of the World will guarantee within states worldwide the institutions necessary for their secure economic and democratic development.


   Sovereign states manage the actions of their subjects and try to direct them towards good behavior but whoever has power in a sovereign state can act in his own interest. The evil actions of individuals are punished by states but a state is not subject to punishment for its evil acts against its own citizens or against citizens of foreign states if it is sovereign. Why is it that we Americans do not realize that we alone of all people in the world live in states where sovereignty is limited? We enjoy in our union of states the benefits and freedoms that result from limiting state sovereignty. We should be shouting to the world that the right to live and work in any one of 50 states and to enjoy full citizenship in any democratic state of our union by simply taking up residence in it is the ultimate human political blessing. We should be passionate about extending our benefits to foreign states by admitting them as new states in our union. But for some reason we seem blind ourselves to the extraordinary benefits of our system and we have no interest in adding new states to our union even though since it began over 200 years ago we have admitted 37 new states.
   A third of Americans live in poverty or struggle to remain not far above poverty. The majority of people outside the United States and other developed countries live in poverty. Poor people in the world have no capital to invest in their economies to produce jobs. In some poor countries the only avenues to wealth are politics and corruption. Plenty of capital and know-how is available worldwide to create jobs, but poor sovereign states ruled by tyrants are not attractive to investors. The best way to develop them is to invite them to become states in our union of states. Then they will draw in investments from investors worldwide looking for totally secure opportunities. And we Americans would have new states in our union needing development where we could use our skills securely and profitably creating wealth for the world's poor and for ourselves.
    But we are blind to our condition. And we are blind to the immense possibilities for good that our political system could do for ourselves and the world. We do not see who we are and where we should be headed.

   The government that has organized the largest union of states on earth is itself not a state. Between 1787 and 1790, thirteen independent states on the east coast of the Atlantic Ocean in North America ratified a Constitution and created a central government with strictly limited sovereign powers in order to create a more perfect union of their states. The states did not give themselves a one-word name because they were thirteen. Their new central government was not a state and therefore possessed no state territory. But it had to have some location so the founding fathers  took small portions of land from the states of Virginia and Maryland and created the District of Columbia. A non-state was created and located in a district that was but a small dot on a map of the original thirteen united states in North America. Despite it’s tiny portion of land, the new government was given among its powers three grand powers: it had exclusive control of all military and diplomatic activities and it alone was given the power to admit new states to the union. From the admission of Vermont in 1791 to that of Hawaii in 1959, the Congress located in the District of Columbia has passed bills admitting thirty-seven new states to the united states. If it continues to admit new states, it would be acting consistently with its past actions and no new state admitted could complain that it had been joined in union to its fellow states by a state.


   Anyone anywhere in the world should have the unalienable right to live and to work and to have full rights as a citizen in any state in a great union of states worldwide. How can any American disagree? Why should we not believe that millions of people will be able to move freely some day from state to state worldwide? We can do this now now in our union of 50 states and we should try to add new states. The men who wrote the Constitution did not mean that the right to universal citizenship should be restricted to our original 13 states. In Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, they wrote, “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.” And that is what the Congress did. Over a period of 200 years it admitted 37 new states. Was any American belittled when Hawaii was admitted in 1959? How can it not be of momentous importance to us and our descendants if another 25 or another 50 states are admitted to our union? People from every race on the planet are already living among us in our states with the right to full citizenship in any state they choose. They come to the US to develop themselves in a political environment that guarantees them universal rights that are denied  them in their native states. Their states should also become parts of our union. Nothing will develop any state anywhere as well as union with states whose central government forces states to govern their people democratically and to allow them universal freedoms.


    No American will ever live in a fully sovereign state. All other peoples on the globe live under fully sovereign governments that can order them to do whatever they want them to do. We have no such governments. We have many federal, state and local governments but none of them are fully sovereign and all of them must by law be democracies. We have rights under the Constitution and judgments by our Supreme Court that directly support the freedom of individuals against the power of all our governments. No law passed by any legislature is absolute. All of them can be appealed in our courts and possibly be overturned. Our political system, despite the unjust inequalities in our society and in spite of mean and piddling politicians, is blessed. It is our moral duty to try our best to extend our system to all of humanity worldwide. Everyone in the world should become an American, meaning all men and women should live among one another in a worldwide union of states with human rights guaranteed to them by law and free from the  anti human powers of fully sovereign governments.

    We are in the habit of calling our government in Washington a national government  but its actions are almost never purely national and most are national-international combined or else are particular actions that benefit only certain groups or individuals. Washington’s sovereign power over the military is used almost exclusively internationally. Its sovereign power over diplomacy has produced an array of diplomatic buildings all over the globe whose size and staffing show they are not used exclusively in the interest of individual US citizens. The commerce power of the Congress can be used directly for the economic benefit of all Americans but it rarely is. The Social Security Act of 1935 is not funded by federal taxes. President Obama’s healthcare plan is the first direct aid to all the American people that is national. It uses federal taxes to directly benefit Americans but many federal and state politicians oppose it and want to get rid of it. We Americans simply do not have a national government that is exclusively national. We fund the Federal Government but our Constitution sets up a government with powers that do not need to be used only nationally. And for the most part, they are not.
  Washington’s actions benefit our 50 states and states throughout the world indirectly. Washington acts mainly as an international government and this is how it should act. When we argue that foreign states should join our union, we claim that they would join a union whose central government is already international.


    The great medieval Italian poet Dante specifically mentions in his political writings that the Roman Empire was divinely chosen. God revealed his approval of Rome by performing miracles to assure the domination of the world by the Romans. Dante believed that the laws of states expressed natural laws which were destined by God to create the happiness of all men. Furthermore, he believed there should be a universal superstate embracing all nations and countries that would prevent wars between states and guide states to rule men in their jurisdictions justly by laws derived from god-given natural laws that lead to universal brotherhood. For Dante to rise to such a grand idea of humanity’s political needs in a medieval Italy torn apart by savage intercity wars is amazing. What would Dante write if he lived now in America and witnessed that 50 sovereign states were already unified by a government in Washington with the powers of a superstate? Would he not walk among us Americans holding in his hands a copy of our Constitution and tell each of us that our sacred document embodies universal principles of human rights that it is our duty to extend to all our brothers on our globe? If he succeeded in thus convincing us of our union’s divine destiny, the blissful knowledge could then be communicated to the greatest of humanity’s poets that the powerful democratic government in Washington with its military spread worldwide to counter evil is not a state. Humanity already has a super powerful central government ready to assume the role of the central government of a worldwide union of states and it is itself not a state! Washington is a perfect solution for both great and small states yearning for worldwide union but fearful of submitting to the power of another state! Washington can not become a new Rome with the power to rule over states but it can have the glory of being the seat of the central democratic government of a world union of states, the center of something like a new worldwide Holy Roman Empire.


    The American system up till now has been nationalism at home and abroad. Americans have been sold the idea that they are members of a nation-state rather than a union of states. People around the globe have been sold the idea that the nation-state is the best form of political organization possible. The American idea for global military and economic domination has been to keep everyone everywhere locked up behind fixed national borders. Meanwhile the American military, American diplomats, American corporations have been roaming the world, openly or secretly, for good or for bad, just as if no nation or any national borders were obstacles to their search globally for riches and power.
    The foundation of the system was the nation. Since the Second World War, new nations have joined old nations all over the globe, but economic globalization has brought with it universally available technologies that are sapping the strength of nations. Nothing was more secure once than a nation with citizens who could not communicate with foreigners and who were unarmed and tightly controlled by a national police. Now worldwide communication is easy and everyone can protest against authorities and find weapons to promote political disorder. The state must remain a vital center promoting the freedom and prosperity of its citizens, but the nation-state as such has outlived its usefulness and some of them are collapsing inwardly in civil wars.
 We Americans should begin to take our political system seriously. We are not a nation-state. Our 50 states are firmly established with definite sovereign powers and they are not in any danger of collapsing. Our loyalty to our Constitution and to the Federal Government it established is the basis of our unity. We should not be afraid to declare to the world that we got rid of the nation-state once and for all by 1789 and that our union of states is a universal political system that states worldwide should join if they wish to preserve what is worthwhile in their present political condition and to begin to live authentically in a globalized world.


    The 31 states of Mexico, the 10 provinces of Canada, and the 7 states of Central America joined under the American Constitution with the 50 states of America would make the greatest union of sovereign states ever seen, or even imagined, in world history. Citizens in  97 states would send senators and representatives to Washington to create laws protecting universal human rights and freedoms for nearly 520 million people. Every citizen would have representation in state governments forced by law to be democratic and uncorrupt by the federal power of one central government to which they would also send elected representatives. Would not the right to move freely to any of 97 states, to enjoy full citizenship merely by establishing residence, and to be free without any of the present legal restraints to work or run a business anywhere on a huge continent - would this not be the most wonderful possible political and economic perspective for all North Americans from the North Pole to the Panama Canal?
  Yes, it would be no more than the most flimsy sort of imagining if it were not really and practically possible because this type of union already exists in the 50 American states and the American Constitution gives the Congress the power in Article IV Section 3  to admit new states. If all North American politicians acted morally in the true interest of all North Americans, they could give us the benefits of the free movement of all capital and all labor in a huge union of free citizens free to live in any state they choose with full universal democratic rights.  We have already on the North American continent from the North Pole to the southern border of Mexico no nation-state. History has been pushing North America for thousands of years to develop without nations. Let’s finally go all the way and create for ourselves the fantastic benefit of living in 97 united states.


    The Civil War caused a radical power shift but it never resulted in the birth of a nation. However, there was a need to unify a post war America that welcomed and put to work 20 million immigrants. School children soon began pledging allegiance every school day to a nation. The Pledge of Allegiance expressed the altered state of the union thus: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” The 13 red and white stripes stretched across the flag represent the 13 original states of the union. The stars on the flag represent the 13 original states and all subsequent states admitted to the union by bills passed by the Congress. The stars and stripes express the union’s complexity. The Pledge of Allegiance simplifies it. It states that all the states taken together are a republic. And it states that this republic is one nation. Since it is impossible logically and practically to form a nation out of 50 sovereign states and so many immigrants coming from all parts of the world, the pledge should be seen as an effort to strengthen loyalty to Washington. Old Americans and new Americans had to learn that there could be no liberty and justice for all and no union without a powerful government in Washington. A corrected pledge, one in harmony with our true history and a more authentic basis for our loyalty to Washington, would be: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republics for which it stands, one perpetual union indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” By 1959, there were 50 states and, adding the government in Washington, 51 republics. The Federal Government, although it is not a state, is certainly, with its duties outlined in the Constitution and its great powers, one republic. In the future we hope it will be the central government of a worldwide union of states and then it will be the head of something much greater than one nation.


    After the Civil War, Americans wanted as little to do with Washington as possible and most considered it a grave moral weakness, almost a sinful condition, if anyone expected anything from it. Protestants in the south lived for years under martial law and some Protestants in the north had sent their sons to their death in Washington’s armies. Both groups knew that nothing could arise in Washington except more power for Washington.The only power they had was the power they found in themselves. Native Americans were soon surrounded by vast numbers of immigrants speaking incomprehensible languages. Over 20 million Europeans came to America between 1870 and 1910. They came from nation-states or empires and understood little about the new radical political system in America. Most native Americans understood that they had never lived in a nation and had no reason to believe they lived in one simply because Washington had gained more power by a civil war.  A common saying passed among immigrants that was equivalent to not living in a nation, “America is a free country”. As America raced on through the most extraordinary industrial revolution ever witnessed on the planet, Americans were forced to take upon themselves a new identity that gave them power and purpose in the new America. Individuals discovered “the work ethic”.The new religion that thrived in the late nineteenth-century industrial jungles preached that poverty was shameful and sinful and riches blessed. People struggled to improve their lot by making money. They ascended if they could the stairs to the divine temples where the rich lived in bliss. On their way up, like the rich, they did not look down at the millions of Americans that the savage industrial development had defeated and held prisoners in the hell fire of poverty.  In the economic arena no one was united with anyone and this lack of unity made individual values the only solid weapons against defeat and produced ironically an overall unity as everyone searched for the American dream on their own. Extreme individualism fit well with a government at the top that was like an aloof imperial government that never left its lofty perch to aid the common man.  Rich men conveyed money to key officials in Washington to keep federal-government power out of the hands of the average American and the immigrants laboring in the dog-eat-dog industrial hell. Many Americans never again took anything Washington politicians said seriously. Historians went to work to discover in American history the “new nation” that Lincoln had spoken of in his Gettysburg Address. Americans kept silent and lived by the work ethic.


    After the Civil War, men hungry for power worked to weaken  the sovereign powers of the states. Washington had assumed enough sovereignty to defeat in war 11 of the states. The federal army held them under martial law for 5 years. The military power that the Federal Government possessed was something that every American now reckoned with and feared. Everyone knew that Washington could use its army against whomever it wished and that it was further solidifying its power with a federal police force and federal prisons. The radical Republicans in power in Congress after Lincoln’s assassination had supported the war and now did everything possible to further reduce state sovereignty. They tried to impeach Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s vice-president, who succeeded him to the presidency. He was against the movement towards expanded federal power and wanted to restore the Washington government and the union to their prewar status. He  survived his impeachment trial in Congress by one vote. In law and in fact, the federal government was no more sovereign now than it had been before the war, but the Republican party understood with fervor that something close to full sovereignty could at last be seized by a united group of men. They expanded federal power by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. They used the court system to strike down state laws that opposed federal policies or tried to regulate business practices.  
    Everything worked against the sovereignty of the states and towards the sovereignty of the Federal Government. Everything except the Constitution. The Constitution does not assign full sovereign power to any state. Instead it takes sovereign powers away from all the states of the union and gives sovereign powers to a central government that is not located in a state. It not only refuses to the Federal Government the status of a state but also separates its power among three branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The Constitution makes no government completely sovereign and forces every one of them to be democratic. The Federal Government marched ahead after the Civil War towards the status of a national state without being a state and the states, weakened by the war, believed they had lost the status as states with nearly full sovereign power that they had had before the war. The rush towards the creation of postwar America as a nation was based on the fiction that the Constitution had created a national government located in Washington D.C.. At the same time, the states suffered from the fiction that the ratification of the Constitution had left them with nearly full sovereign power when in reality such a degree of power had already been taken away from them by the Constitution. The Constitution had limited the powers of all American governments to such a radical degree that they were all doomed forever to be capable of functioning only as democracies.
    But the radical Republicans had nonetheless discovered that a political party with branches and supporters in every state could wield sovereign powers from the top down if it could establish solid political centers of power in all the states from the bottom up. The Constitution could be amended but it could never award full sovereignty to any government. The two party system became the only route towards the exercise of something close to full sovereignty by Washington. The two party system is in full force today but so is the Constitution. Without the Constitution, the entire legal system of the union, both state and federal, would be nullified. Without it, all the states would become fully sovereign and separate nation-states. The Washington government would still be a non-state agency located in a stateless district but its powers would be invalid because it would no longer have the supreme power and duty of organizing states into a just union. Two political parties can continue to fight for supreme central power but without the Constitution and the Union, no power would exist that they could seize.

    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 soothe 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.


   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.


    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.


    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 though 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.

    Jefferson and Madison, the third and fourth presidents, were men of culture and thought who had direct experience of the fight for independence and the formation of the Constitution. Historians usually concentrate on a conflict during this period between Federalists, who wanted a strong central government, and conservatives who were for states rights. Thomas Jefferson never gave up his firm conviction that Virginia was his country and not the United States but any conflict in his mind between federal and state power faded when Napoleon of France sold him the territory France possessed west of the Mississippi River, from Louisiana on the gulf of Mexico to territory in the far northwest on the Pacific Ocean, for 3 cents an acre.  Settlers were already moving westward into the open lands east of the Mississippi and now in addition a huge new open territory was added to the union west of the Mississippi all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Napoleon was doing his best with his army to set up in Europe a union of states in a French empire and he more than doubled the future size of the American union by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Napoleonic wars were going on in Europe and Madison was president, America began a war with Britain in 1812. Madison had to flee Washington D.C. when it was occupied by British forces. He returned the next day to examine government buildings set on fire by the British. But by 1812, 5 more states had been admitted to the union. The war proved that a European nation-state might set fires in the seat of the union’s government but none of them could stop the advance of a union of states with limited sovereignty and democratic freedoms. During the war, the 5 New England states met in Hartford Connecticut to consider secession from the union. The war against Britain was clearly not in the region’s economic interest and New Englanders were concerned also that the admission of new states reduced their political power in the central government. But an extraordinary new way to organize humanity’s political life in a new revolutionary system was underway and the New Englanders at the conference in Hartford voted to remain a part of it. In Europe after the Napoleonic wars, independent nation-states reappeared with full independent power and the strongest set out with their ships to conquer and subjugate more peoples worldwide for their colonial empires. But in the new open territories in America, new free states were set up with guaranteed democratic governments and unalienable human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The 5 New England states showed the political power states with limited sovereignty possessed when they asserted their right to secede and then rejected secession. George Washington died 16 years before Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo in 1815. George Washington had created a democratic union of 13 states that would expand to 50 by admitting in 1959 the state of Hawaii. Napoleon lost his battle to unify Europe but he succeeded in expanding the American union by selling it enough territory for 14 new states. A future United States Of The World will have for its history books two heroes who personally created 27 of them.


    When George Washington took the oath of office in 1789 in New York as the first president of the United States, the occasion was so solemn that it was indeed like the awesome moment of the birth of a nation except that no nation came into being and Washington was not sworn in as the head of any state. He considered his role as president that of a referee. Most American historians nonetheless crowned the event as the birth of a nation and volumes have since been written attempting to unite American history since the arrival of Europeans in the seventeenth century as the story of the germination and birth and growth of a nation. This view is false. George Washington as commander of the Continental Army had led a rebellion that was not a national event since he fought in a civil war between colonists subjects of the British Parliament and King. It is fairly easy however for historians to call anyone who lived in the thirteen colonies an American and any action of the central government set up by the rebels national. George Washington became president of a federal government of thirteen states whose governors had powers that could be described more accurately as national than his. The truth is that as law and as fact there was no national government anywhere because none of the American governments were fully sovereign. The states had great powers and reinforced by the powers granted the Federal Government, they acted as sovereign nations. A state governor had the same police powers as any nation-state governor. The people lived under state constitutions and state courts and they now had the fantastic new liberty of having the right under the Constitution to cross state borders and live in any state they chose with full political rights. State governments were now even more secure in their power since a provision in the Constitution allowed them to appeal to the American army for help in putting down insurrections in their states. George Washington was a charismatic figure like Napoleon in Europe and he could have embodied a nation as did Napoleon if there were a basis for one. Instead he was a referee. He had as head of the executive branch sovereign powers over the military and diplomacy. But he did not fight any foreign state and the diplomatic actions he undertook did not affect Americans greatly. Foreign nations recognized the new government as a nation because it acted as a nation when dealing with them. At home, citizens of the new form of the union were enthused with developing their states and the continental territories open to them all the way to the Mississippi River. Foreigners and American historians called them Americans  living in an American nation, but the title given their president at his inauguration, “George Washington, president of the United States” indicated that the country Americans lived in was the United States. They did not care much how foreigners and historians defined their political system as long as it let them live freely as free men on the move in free states and wide-open territories.


    The German philosopher Hegel wrote the greatest work examining humanity’s progress towards the expression of the divine in history. In his Philosophy of History, he examines the progress in world history of what he calls “universal spirit”. This spirit expresses itself throughout history in a variety of finite forms among many peoples all of which fail to reveal the universal spirit absolutely. Each finite form of universal spirit is inevitably surpassed in a dialectical movement of history by a new finite form which reaches however a higher form. Hegel identifies the progress of the world towards universal spirit as progress towards freedom. The oriental world, he writes, knew only the freedom of one man, as the pharaoh in Egypt. The Greek and Roman world knew the freedom only of some men, since slavery was instituted. The Protestant Germanic states of Hegel’s time, the early nineteenth century, finally realize the freedom of all. “The essential being,” he wrote, “is the union of the subjective with the rational will: it is the moral whole, the state, which is that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom”. Hegel was right that the European nation-state, set up by middle-class lawyers with laws protecting the riches of the middle class and exempting the rich from most taxes, was a historical development that granted at least the rich freedom. He did not know what might develop in the future beyond the European world of his time, but he did declare that “America is therefore the land of the future where in the ages that lie before us, the burden of the world’s history shall reveal itself.” According to American history, the nation-state is itself a burden that the world must get rid of if world history is to become unburdened. The true burden of America is to show the world that universal spirit reveals itself more fully in a union of states than in isolated nation-states. If the United States of America can transform itself to the United States of the World, universal spirit and universal freedom have a chance to become at last universal on our earth.


    Once a state gives up its right to make war on other states and to conduct diplomacy with other states, what rights does it need to keep its integrity as a state? Does it need the right to set up tariffs to protect the economy within its borders from competition with other state economies? Yes, unless it is a member state in a union with other states worldwide who have agreed to get rid of all tariffs and make all commerce among states free. Must a state recognize by a passport or other official documents who its citizens are and who have the right to work within its borders? Yes, unless it is in a union of states who all agree that anyone from any state in the union can by right be a citizen of any of the other states with the right to vote and to work and to run for public office by simply deciding to reside in some chosen state. But if there is universal citizenship in such a union, how can a state govern its own affairs and protect its citizens from criminal behavior if it has stripped itself of normal state powers? It has state and local police under the control of a state governor and it has a state judicial system as well as a state constitution. How does it protect its state government from rule by a dictator and from corruption by state officials? There is no protection from dictatorship or corruption in a nation-state isolated from other states. Even in democratic nation-states, elected officials sometimes act like dictators and support corruption. The only way to permanently assure real democracy is for states to give up a completely independent state judicial system and make all its citizens subjects also to a federal judicial system with a Supreme Court as the final judge of the validity of all laws made by any government. Only a system with dual governments at both the federal and state levels can produce the independent out-of-state authority needed to arrest corrupt officials of any state and to put them in jail for their crimes. This means that there will be a central government established with supreme legal power. Isn’t this the death of democracy? How can democracy exist in a state that has given up so much power? The central government’s army will protect every state from invasion and guarantee a republican form of government in every state. Well, what about taxes? Why should a state give up its exclusive right to tax its citizens? Why should it allow a central government to also tax them? To finance freedom, peace, justice and democracy. When citizens in nation-states send all their tax monies to one government, they get little back and they often end up financing corruption in various forms, legal and illegal.


     When George Washington appeared at the first meeting of the Constitutional  Convention in Philadelphia in May of 1787, he was voted president of the body unanimously. During the debates designed to secure a more perfect union of the states by transferring some sovereign state powers to a central government, Washington was mostly silent. He believed it was his duty not to lend his prestige for or against any particular position. As he sat silently as president, he listened as the powers that the new government would have emerged from the debates. The men came like Washington in carriages from great distances over poor dirt roads. A few were acquainted but most were strangers to one another. But as the debates went on and they met socially at dinners in taverns, barriers between them fell and they grew more comfortable with one another. The convention of men coming great distances was an embryo of the Congresses that would meet year after year once the Constitution was ratified by the states. No one was perfectly satisfied with the final document they signed and sent to state legislatures to reject or ratify. Washington had his doubts about what was decided as did many others but he reasoned correctly that there were provisions in the Constitution for amending it. The founding fathers divided the powers of the new government between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. They granted  absolute sovereign powers only to the executive branch over diplomacy and the military. They did their best to try to solve a political problem that no congress of men had ever tried to solve before. How could they preserve the power of thirteen sovereign states and at the same time create a central government with enough power to defend the union and keep it united by limiting state power? They knew that the powers they granted the federal government would be tested by events in the future history of America and they knew that its powers might be increased by the radical interpretations of the Constitution by unpatriotic men desiring only money and power. However they made another power absolute and safe from malicious interpretations in addition to military and diplomatic powers. The Constitution gives the federal Congress the absolute power to admit new states. It can pass a bill admitting new states to our union any time it wishes. George Washington did not participate in the debates but he ratified the Constitution by signing it. We citizens of the union can ratify it every time we elect men and women to represent us in a new Congress in Washington DC who will work like the men in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to create a more perfect union and to share sovereign powers between the Federal Government and the states justly. And since our Congress has the absolute power to admit new states, any national state in the world can also ratify the Constitution by applying to the American Congress for admittance to our union.


    The nation-state is a European invention. The Romans began the long fight to establish their empire beginning as a tribe living among the 7 hills of Rome. European nations developed typically in patterns of historical experiences much like those of the Romans, but the Romans ended up with an empire, the Europeans with the nation-state. The Romans fought heroic battles to enlarge their territory. They subdued neighboring tribes and established new borders and then went beyond the borders to new conquests. So did Europeans. The Romans made a central city, Rome, the seat of their expanded territory. The Europeans did the same setting up London and Paris, Madrid and Lisbon and other European cities as the seat of some expanded territory. The Romans took their tribal language, Latin, refined it and forced it on the natives of their conquered territories. The English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and all the other leading tribes of other European territories did the same. The most powerful confederation of tribes selected one of many languages, refined it and forced it on all the remaining tribes in their nation-state. The Romans won heroic life and death struggles with enemies to confirm their conquests and their imperial identity as Romans in a settled territory with a distinct language. The Europeans did the same except that they called their newly founded empires states. The European states grew up over long periods of crises and wars into firmly established unities of peoples with racial similarities and with well developed languages protected by armies eager for glorious a  wars to vindicate their national honor. The African and American states never went through similar experiences. Europeans left them with the boundaries of states and with European languages but without a living inner kernel of common creative and dramatic historical experience necessary to give birth to a genuine nation
    The union of the thirteen original sovereign American states was a unique construction. The American Constitution is generally understood to have been a masterful creation using doctrines of revolutionary European political theorists of the age of enlightenment. This is not true. Rationalist philosophers in Europe railed against the endless wars among their European nation-states but none of them theorized about setting up some kind of new supranational government whose purpose and being was designed to unite states rather than to be only just another national state among national states. The government of the United States of America was just such a supranational creation. The government in Washington set up by the Constitution was “The Government of the United States”. It had a purpose and a being for the united states not over the united states. Washington D.C., a non-state located in no state, was the seat of a government of a union of 13 sovereign states who had each dared to legally limit their sovereignty to receive the benefits of free interstate commerce and citizenship. The government of a nation-state restricts the freedom of its citizens by imprisoning them within borders. A union of states continually opens up for its citizens grand possibilities beyond all borders. European nation-states limit for their citizens what is possible. The 50 American states teach their citizens that there are no limits and that everything is possible.


    We are a union of states that the Civil War transformed into a nation that then became a de facto world government. This triangle with the angles union, nation, world leader should give us Americans a triple identity. If we try to be only the citizens of a nation, we betray the Constitution which has not bestowed upon the federal government enough powers to make it the head of a nation. We neither can think of ourselves as being only citizens of one of our 50 states without betraying our loyalty to the federal government which is the unifying power of our economic, judicial and political systems. Since the Second World War our government in Washington has been manipulating foreign states for its own interests and also for the good goals of all of humanity. We are morally obligated to identify ourselves at least in part with the upsurge of our central government towards the global unification of all the peoples of the world. We believe ourselves a nation like other nations at our economic and moral peril as long as our central government continues operating all over the globe towards the goals of universal worldwide peace and unity and universal human rights for all peoples.
   Our government recognizes no national frontiers of foreign states as beyond its reach. Since it does not act only as a nation, we should base our patriotism on our total and absolute loyalty to the federal government. That is enough. Since we recognize Washington’s laws as superior in their proper place to state laws, we should regard it as the leader of a nation only in a very limited sense. Since Washington is already a de facto world government, we should think of our loyalty to Washington also as loyalty to its worldwide goals.  It is part of the fundamental character of our political identity as Americans that we have been continually admitting new states to our union since the union's beginning in 1790, in all 37. The Constitution that rules state and federal actions asserts in article IV section 3 that Congress has the power, an unlimited power, to admit new states. Our political identity must be triple to be true. The United States with characteristics of both a union of states and a nation and with a dominant role in the world can never fulfill itself except by admitting new states from all over the world and by transforming its federal government in Washington DC to the central government of a united states of the world. Only if we Americans act in harmony at the same time with the three elements of our political identity - state,national and international - can we create our true good and the world’s true good.


    We propose that the states of the world unite with the fifty American states to become each a state of the United States of the World. The structure of this union already exists and has been growing and developing for over two hundred years. The United States of North America and the Pacific Ocean do not form and have never formed a nation. Its people come from all the nations and empires of the world and speak, or their ancestors have spoken, most languages in the world. According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Americans have double citizenship. They are citizens of the United States and citizens of the state where they choose to live. They can go to any state of their union and become established with full rights of citizenship simply by deciding to live there. They vote for representatives to two governments, one in Washington in the District of Columbia, and one in the state of their choice. We must begin to understand that our real interests are local and global at the same time and that we must make a global revolution to free ourselves fully and to reach our full human potential. But before any more quiet, rational arguments like these for our desired revolution, let’s release some revolutionary cries. Down with the blindness in the world that does not see and does not wish to see that real democracy is alive and fruitful in each of our 50 states! Down with the fiction that absolute sovereignty is necessary to ensure freedom in a state! Down with sovereign and absolute power in the hands of one person or one group  making all laws for millions of people! Two strong, democratic governments each with limited sovereign powers are better than one government with all the power! Sovereign and absolute power often exists to make corrupt riches possible for the person or group that has such power! A criminal is brought to justice in a court of law so it is also reasonable to put any law created by any government in a court to be judged according to the universal rights of humanity written in a constitution and superior to all the laws of all the governments in a union of states! Down with the idea that our union of 50 sovereign states must be uniquely American! It is open to all states of the world! The Congress in Washington has an absolute right written in the US Constitution to accept any new state into our union as it has already done 37 times since 1791! Join us you citizens of sovereign states so that we may free one another by all of us having two democratic governments, one local, our state with limited sovereignty, the other global in Washington DC, a central government that is not a state, that is not located in a state, and that possesses sovereign powers more strictly limited by the US Constitution than the sovereign powers of our states.


    In Hegel’s great work, The Philosophy Of History, the German philosopher not only claims that world history has a divine purpose but also that the divine development going on is perfectly rational. Absolute Spirit expresses itself throughout history in a variety of forms. The universal aim of spirit at work in history is human freedom. The oriental world knew only the freedom of one man, as for example the pharaoh in Egypt. The Greek and Roman world knew only the freedom of some men, since slavery was instituted. The Protestant Germanic states of Hegel’s time, the early nineteenth century, finally realize the freedom of all. “The essential being,” Hegel wrote, “is the union of the subjective with the rational will: it is the moral whole, the state, which is that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom.” Since Hegel’s time, states in Europe providing a form for the realization of their citizens’ freedom have also been forced tragically to provide armies as a vehicle for their citizens to kill citizens from foreign states in grand battles and two world wars. The history of Europe after Hegel showed clearly that if Absolute Spirit was going to produce human freedom it would have to take some form other than the European nation-state. Hegel  looked beyond the political realities of his time to America. He suggested that the full burden of history’s march towards humanity’s freedom could not be born by Europe alone. “America is therefore the land of the future,” he wrote in The Philosophy Of History, “where in the ages that lie before us, the burden of the world’s history will reveal itself.” American political experience agrees completely with Hegel’s notion that only the state can be the form where freedom can and should be exercised. But American experience also proves that the freedom of all individuals can not be exercised fully in a state that possesses full national sovereignty. A fully sovereign state always puts full power and full freedom in the hands of a minority of its citizens. Such power can be reduced and spread around throughout a population to free all citizens only if the political power of a state is not absolute. A state can be “the moral whole” and “that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom” without being a fully sovereign state if it can become a member state of a just union of states with a central government  with the legal power clearly stated in a Constitution to force states to support freedom for all their citizens. The American Federal Government has already lightened history’s burden by assuming some of the sovereign power of 50 states but it has not lessened their sovereign power to govern themselves democratically and provide for their citizens a moral whole where they can live freely.


     Everyone believes that democracy is the best form of government and that everyone should live in a democratic state. But the terrible disruptions of civil peace going on all over the globe demand more than democratic governments with democratic leaders. We need holy democratic leaders, saintly leaders, men who will not take any action with the power voted to them by their fellow citizens unless it is good, honest, pure, moral and in the best interest of all. Down with all leaders who are merely pragmatic! We need leaders who really believe that every human being has universal rights that must be supported and respected and that humanity possesses a divine purpose for living on earth. It is an illusion to believe that because the bourgeoisie took control of states in the 19th century and used governments exclusively to make laws to support their selfish economic goals that humanity is condemned forever to suffer dominated by greedy and selfish leaders who never consult the grace to do good that God put in their soul. Peoples in the past created communities inspired by their sense of the divine. Ancient Egypt was a divine empire. Ancient philosophers believed the business of governing was a divine vocation. Moses's laws tried to make moral goodness the basis of his community. Saint Augustine in his great book, The City Of God, the Civitas Dei, claims that in world history two states exist side by side, the civitas dei and the civitas terrena, the heavenly city of God composed of the good and the earthly city composed of the unredeemed. Nation-states in our time do have nasty, difficult, practical problems to deal with but that should never be an excuse for leaders acting corruptly and immorally. A government like our government in Washington with its trillions of dollars in revenue and its freedom as a central government from the day-to-day tasks of state governments should never act selfishly and immorally. Washington should become in our 21st century a central world international government of a worldwide union of states with saintly leaders gathered from all over our globe promoting with their great power Saint Augustine’s civitas dei.