Before jumping into an examination of the sovereign authority of our States, I defer to Lincoln for a succinct definition of the term “sovereign.” There are a number of lengthy, and sometimes convoluted, definitions, but Abraham Lincoln, as only he could do, explained it best when he once suggested that sovereignty was, “A political community, without a political superior.”

This article examines the sovereign nature of our States from the time they were colonies subject to the superior sovereign authority of the British Crown, their emergence as sovereign States vis-à-vis their Declaration of Independence, and subsequent actions confirming their sovereignty.

Simply stated: the States, through their people, established their sovereignty in 1776, and during their progression through various political confederations and compacts, have they ever relinquished it.

The Colonies

Before their Declaration of Independence, the colonies were not sovereign entities since the British Parliament controlled their political affairs, and the colonists, with the same rights as Englishmen, were subjects of his majesty, the King of England.

Beginning with the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, thirteen British colonies were eventually established and matured with Georgia, in 1732, becoming the last. Each of these thirteen colonies had some form of colonial government operating at the pleasure of, and under the jurisdiction of, the British Crown and Great Britain. There were occasions where the colonies sent representatives to meetings called to address common colonial problems, but in so doing, they never formed any government entity with powers to regulate or administer the colonies.

The Albany Congress in 1754 was the colony’s first attempt at common problem solving, and their first attempt to form a union to further that objective as well as to forge a treaty with the Iroquois nations. Seven of the thirteen colonies (Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia) did not attend.

These meetings lasted twenty-three days, and culminated with a proposal, known as the Albany Plan of Union, submitted by Benjamin Franklin. This proposed union inserted a layer of government, called the Grand Council, between the colonies and Great Britain. While the Grand Council would assume certain functions from the colonies (e.g. provide for the common defense, levy taxes, make laws), there was no proposed change in the political nature of the colonies since they would still be under the jurisdiction and sovereign authority of the British Crown. The assembled representatives accepted the plan on July 10, 1754, and sent copies to the British Crown and the respective colonial governments where all parties ultimately rejected it.

The Stamp Act Congress of 1765 included nine of the thirteen British colonies (Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire did not attend). At this meeting, representatives of the colonies drafted the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, listing certain acts of Parliament the colonies believed were in violation of their rights as subjects of the British Crown, chief among them, taxation without representation. This meeting resulted in a petition to Parliament that expressed common complaints of the colonies and asked Parliament to repeal these acts. Although Parliament initially rejected this petition, they eventually repealed the Stamp Act.

The First Continental Congress met in 1774 in response to several laws (referred to as the Intolerable Acts by the colonists) passed by the British parliament primarily in response to the Boston Tea Party. This meeting included representatives of twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia again did not attend). Representatives of the colonies first considered a plan that had its genesis in the Albany Plan of Union submitted by Benjamin Franklin twenty years earlier at the Albany Congress. Although ultimately rejected, this new proposal, known as the Galloway Plan of Union, generated much interest among those in attendance. This meeting also produced the Articles of Association and the Declarations and Resolves leading to the “Petition to the King.”

Even though the Galloway Plan of Union, the Declarations and Resolves, and the Petition to the King were significant, the Articles of Association was the most important accomplishment of the First Continental Congress. The Articles of Association was significant in that it was the first time the colonies agreed to act in a unified manner, but the Articles did not establish any governmental entity. The Articles was nothing more than an agreement between the colonies to support a trade boycott of Great Britain.

The Articles of Association also provided a clear understanding of how the colonies viewed themselves. The Articles confirmed their continued loyalty to Great Britain by referring to themselves as “his majesty’s most loyal subjects.” They also reaffirmed their independence from each other by stipulating they were separate colonies with references to delegates representing each colony.

The Second Continental Congress met in 1775 with twelve of the thirteen colonies represented (Georgia was again absent, although a couple of months later they finally sent their representatives). This Congress served to coordinate the war effort by the colonies while at the same time attempting to resolve the differences between the colonies and the British Crown. There was no consideration of forming a new governmental entity, and by May 1776, this Continental Congress encouraged the colonies to declare their independence from the British Empire and initiated the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence

Virginia, by an act of their legislature, declared independence in May 1776, and was therefore independent before the joint declaration two months later. New York, on the other hand, did not receive authorization to agree to the Declaration until after July 4, but eventually, all thirteen colonies authorized the joint declaration of the colony’s independence and separation from Great Britain.

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession from the British Empire and by proclaiming their natural God-given right for a government better suited to their life, liberty and happiness, each Colony became a free and independent sovereignty with the following proclamation:

That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES … and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.

Although the word “sovereign” did not appear in their Declaration, it was conveyed through the defining language “FREE AND INDEPENDENT,” as well as their claim of a sovereign like authority to do all “Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.” These individual States, by their Declaration, established their political superiority and were each therefore reborn as sovereign States.

The Articles of Confederation

These former Colonies, now independent sovereign States, formed the first central government of these United States through their ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. It is clear these thirteen States considered themselves sovereign before entering into this compact, and they retained their sovereign nature after joining the Confederation. Article I, Section II of the Confederation states:

Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

You cannot make it any clearer. At this point in history, these States, regardless of what others might later conclude, obviously believed they were sovereign independent States before ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and they believed they remained as such after its ratification.

Treaty of Paris (between the States and the British Crown)

The significance of this treaty, officially ending the American Revolutionary War, cannot be overstated. This was not a treaty between the Crown of Great Britain and the United States federal government, but rather a treaty between the British Crown and each of the thirteen free and independent sovereign States. Article I of the treaty states:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., [all thirteen States separately named] to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.

With these words, the British Crown acknowledged their former colonies, previously under their complete jurisdiction and authority, were now “free, sovereign and independent States.” This is powerful irrefutable evidence of the sovereign nature of these thirteen States—especially so since it came from their one-time superior sovereign authority.

The Constitution

Like the Declaration of Independence, there was no reference in the Constitution, as there was in the Articles of Confederation, specifically proclaiming the sovereign nature of the States, but there was also no evidence indicating they had abandoned their sovereign authority. There are however many structural components of the Constitution that clearly define the powers and relationship between the States and the federal government—leaving no doubt whatsoever that the States retained their sovereignty and were the superior political entity. Significant evidence of such includes:

• There was no federal government until the States created it by ratifying the Constitution—the federal government was not a party to this Compact.
• The States retained the authority to amend the Constitution and redefine, or even withdraw, powers previously delegated to the federal government.
• The States retained the supreme authority to dissolve the Compact and therefore dissolve the federal government. Only the individual States would survive such dissolution but not the federal government.
• The Constitution delegated—they did not surrender—specific and limited powers to the federal government as their agent and reserved all other unnamed, and virtually unlimited, powers to the States and their people.
• Since the Constitution did not address the issue of State sovereignty, it remained unaffected. It was a certainty the Founders believed the Constitution itself made it clear which party was superior and therefore, as with other unlimited and unnamed reserved powers and authority of the States, no reaffirmation was necessary.

This arrangement clearly, and without language to the contrary, established the States as the superior political authority within the Constitution, and therefore the States retained their sovereign nature.

The Status of State Sovereignty

An unconstitutional war by the federal government against several States in the 1860s, and the continued unconstitutional intrusion by an all-consuming federal government into areas never delegated give the impression of a federal government that has wrestled away the sovereign authority of the States. Despite the apparent willingness of the States to accept an increasingly dominant federal government, the fact remains that the Constitution has never been amended to transfer the State’s sovereignty to one national central government.

The States therefore are still the superior parties to the Compact, and contrary to their submissive nature, maintain an unbroken chain of sovereignty. Each State, in managing their political affairs, can rightfully exercise their sovereign authority as they, and they alone, see fit. The States today, as they were in 1776, have no superior political authority to which they must submit and obey, and therefore they remain free to secede from these United States by withdrawing from the Compact should they so decide.

Today might well be a day to commemorate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, born in 1882, because the dime in his memory was first issued in 1946 and Dore Schary's play about the younger FDR, "Sunrise at Campobello," premiered on this day in 1958 - and for that I have a personal connection, as my parents took my sister and me to see it about 2 months later.

In 1965, Britain held the official state funeral of FDR's great contemporary Sir Winston Churchill, who after all is also an American citizen, not merely because of his American mother, but because the Congress of the United States chose to so honor him as they had done earlier with Lafayette.

IN 1948 Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated -  a man who served as a model for Martin Luther King Jr, and for many who sought non-violent means of changing the inequities of the world in which we live.

But this is also a day in which the malevolent presence of Adolph Hitler looms large.  In 1933 he was sworn in as Chancellor.  And in 1939 he called for the extermination of the Jews -  it was not that the world did not know his intent, because major newspapers around the world, including The New York Times, had that information in their stories the following day (although for some reason the list of events the NY Times offers for this date includes no mention of Hitler).

Perhaps one interested in Woman's history would note several of the births on this date -  eminent historian Barbara Tuchman in 1912;  Congresswoman and presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm in 1920; and feminist leader Eleanor Smeal in 1939.

Two people whose politics were very different were also born this day, actress and radical activist Vanessa Redgrave in 1937, Dick Cheney in 1940.

There are deaths of importance.  Perhaps we can remember that 1972 was Bloody Sunday in Londonderry, when British troops opened fire killing 13.  Or the shame of our own nation, as Seminole leader Osceola died in Jail in 1838.

Perhaps appropriately, Bob Herbert's New York Times column today is on the late Howard Zinn, who reminded us of how selectively we are in our recall and teaching of our own history.  In A Radical Treasure Herbert, who recently had a meal with Zinn, offers this:  

Mr. Zinn was often taken to task for peeling back the rosy veneer of much of American history to reveal sordid realities that had remained hidden for too long. When writing about Andrew Jackson in his most famous book, "A People's History of the United States," published in 1980, Mr. Zinn said:

"If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school textbooks in American history, you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people - not Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians."

Radical? Hardly.

Zinn called himself a radical.  I suppose I would similarly describe myself, although in doing so I make no attempt to elevate myself to Zinn's level.  It IS radical to insist upon an accurate portrayal of history, with all of its warts as well as its triumphs.  Just as it is radical to parse the language of modern day politics and policy to see what it really says.  That is, getting to the root of things is radical from the Latin radix - I was always fascinated by etymology -  and it is radical because we are rarely willing to be so honest about ourselves and our own history, to examine the flaws as well as the achievements of our heroes.

We often miss what we can learn from taking the time to remember the past.  For example, another date today is from 1781, when Maryland - the state in which I teach - became the 13th state to ratify the Articles of Confederation.  The Congress had adopted the document in 1777, but it required unanimity to go into effect.  Thus the Revolution was largely fought on behalf of a nation that lacked an approved governing document.  Yes, Yorktown was still in the future, thus the war was ongoing.  But might it not be beneficial to reexamine the Revolutionary period to recognize how unique the cooperation of the 13 states was given no document defining how a central government should operate?

I do not claim to be an historian, even though I have taught a variety of history courses over the years.  I have also researched topics that interested me, sometimes in conjunction with work in college and graduate schools, sometimes independently of any ongoing academic endeavor.  My perspective on historical matters is personal, shaped by my own experience and  the limits of my knowledge, yet also informed by my curiosity.   The idea of each day reminding myself of what has happened on that date in the past serves to connect me to something greater than the length of my own life, to see my own experience in a broader and richer context.  It can challenge me to rethink my attitudes, to deepen and reshape my perspectives and interpretations.

Today would be a very difficult day for me to choose one of the events of this date as a sole focus.  Thus I find myself reflecting on the nature of history, of what - and of whom - we remember.  

As a teacher of American Government, were today a school day I would probably find occasion to point the students both at FDR and Maryland's ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

But it is a Saturday.  And on Saturdays part of my personal pattern is to turn to the words of certain men whose columns appear that day, one of whom is Bob Herbert.  As I reflect over the history, I turn again to Herbert's words about Howard Zinn, particularly these  

I always wondered why Howard Zinn was considered a radical. (He called himself a radical.) He was an unbelievably decent man who felt obliged to challenge injustice and unfairness wherever he found it. What was so radical about believing that workers should get a fair shake on the job, that corporations have too much power over our lives and much too much influence with the government, that wars are so murderously destructive that alternatives to warfare should be found, that blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities should have the same rights as whites, that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet?

who felt obliged to challenge injustice and unfairness wherever he found it  -  words that challenge me to examine how I lead my own life, what lessons I impart by words and actions to the students for whom I am responsible

that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet? - are those interests even included in much of the history we teach?  Why should it have been so radical for Zinn to insist upon our focusing on them in his People's History?  Do we avail ourselves of the kind of material he pioneered, and someone like Joy Hakim (A History of US) also offered?  

History.... births ...  deaths ... anniversaries ....   memories of all sorts.

On any day the are so many things to which we can turn to remind ourselves of how we arrived where we now find ourselves.  And as I write those words I find I am reminded of other - poetic - words, from T. S. Eliot:  

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

I am also chastened and remind myself that while it is good to remember that which has gone before, we should not be so consumed that we fail to notice what is happening now, around us, in which we are a part. We are participating in the creation of new history by what we do - or don't do,  by what we say - or how we remain silent when perhaps we should speak out in protest.  

As I write that last phrase, additional words come to mind, those attributed to Edmund Burke:  

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

  . . . to do nothing in the presence of recognizable wrong is to acquiesce in the damage that it does.

Remembering those words, and those from Eliot's "Little Gidding," I return again to the various events of this day.  I look at Bloody Sunday, at the deaths of Gandhi and Osceola, and most of all at the 1939 pronouncement of Hitler.  There is a lesson, at least for me, one that outweighs notable births such as that of FDR.  It is the requirement to speak out against injustice, as Howard Zinn did throughout his life.  It is the challenge to live in opposition to tyranny and oppression, as Gandhi demonstrated.  It is to be willing to risk oneself on behalf of others, as Osceola demonstrated.

And most of all, it is to never remain silent or fail to take seriously the radical statements offered by those in or aspiring to positions of power.  Adolph Hitler should have taught us that.

On this day ...   on any day ...   there are lessons we can learn from the past.  There are also present challenges to meet.

Present challenges:   health care, economic suffering,  political conflict at home,  armed strife around the world, . . .

Most of all, there are the challenges of ordinary living, taking the time to acknowledge those who are a regular part of our existence, being willing to open our hearts to others even in the smallest of ways.

Which reminds me of still other words, from the Gospel of Matthew:  "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!"  

Not all things are within our power to change.  We cannot use that as an excuse to turn inward, to avert our eyes.  Yes, we are entitled to live our own lives, to celebrate our personal joys, such as the birthday yesterday of my spouse.  Yet there is something more we are called to do -  to remember, to allow memory to help us open our hearts as a flower opens to the sun, rather than to close it off in a clenched fist.

That is true on this day ...   on any day ...  

Peace.