In contrast, scholars such as Gould and Leonard Sadosky have employed a broader concept of international history that incorporates borderlands relations and treats them as deeply intertwined with Atlantic diplomacy. At the same time American Indian strength and European American weakness meant that a precarious peace could only be maintained by continuous negotiation influenced as much by indigenous beliefs and practices as by the law of the imperial powers. When the military and administrative capacity of the national government grew after the adoption of the Constitution, the United States gradually re-shaped the legal geography by extending the law of nations into the borderlands.
Georgia ruling, which effectively ended the tradition of recognizing Native American nations as independent and accelerated the process of Indian removal.
Along with Atlantic trade, American economic success depended on the successful development of the West. Rebelling against Britain, the American people and their leaders had banked on their ability to lay their hands on that commodity after independence. Visions of the future wealth of the region were legion long before the fertile lands of the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys became home to a large population of European American settler-migrants.
But unlocking the economic potential of the West required not only the transfer of western territory from the states to Congress, a process well under way by , but also the creation of a legal framework for federal rule of the national domain.
That legal framework had to provide both for the management of a vast geographic space predestined for fundamental transformation, and for the management of two distinctive population groups: the indigenous inhabitants that controlled the land and the white settlers that the government hoped would replace them. Production would be partly for the market and settlement would be relatively dense, allowing for both local self-government and market integration. Educated and kept in line by missionaries and government agents, the people of the Northwest Territory would be prevented from backsliding into barbarity.
The ultimate aim was for white migrants to the West to reproduce their republican homelands in the East. This transposition of Atlantic republics into the continental interior required intervention by the national government in several steps: first to transfer land titles from American Indian nations to the United States through a process of negotiation and purchase ratified by treaty; second to remove the American Indian inhabitants beyond a treaty line defining the land cleared for European American settlement; third to survey and sell this land to white settlers in farm-sized parcels; and fourth to create a colonial government to oversee the process of immigration and the gradual development of settler sovereignty that would eventually turn the Northwest Territory into sovereign republics that would join the American union as equal treaty parties.
As the term suggests, the principal governing instrument in this polity was the Indian treaty. These documents ratified Indian land transfers to the United States and established a borderline separating American Indians from European American settlers. Treaties also attempted to sever commercial and political links with Britain and Spain and replace them with ties to the United States.
The International interpretation puts the spotlight on international and intra-union affairs where the Progressives have focused on domestic matters. But rather than making the Progressive perspective redundant, the International interpretation makes it possible to approach the old question of who should rule at home with fresh eyes. By presenting the Constitution as a federal treaty that left the internal arrangement of the states largely alone, the unionist perspective forces us to recognize that the ground rules determining who should rule at home were created through a much more complex process, taking place at different levels of government and involving multiple sources of law, than the Progressive account allows.
And by highlighting the role of the federal government in commercial and territorial expansion it opens new areas that can be fruitfully analysed as sites of struggle between social groups over material resources. A proper understanding of the constitutional settlement of requires us to recognize the impact of the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance on the organization of the western borderlands and the impact of the Constitution on international relations in the Atlantic marketplace.
But it also means going beyond the Constitution and national politics to account for change and stasis at state and local level. In , the trans-Appalachian West made up roughly half the national domain of the United States. To exclude this enormous region and its population from the analysis of who came to rule at home is surely impossible after decades of American Indian and borderlands historians have emphasized their importance to the course of American history.
The fiscal, military and administrative resources that the Constitution invested in the new federal government made possible the gradual transformation of the West into American republics. In the train of federal soldiers came surveyors and land agents followed by settler colonists.
Between and , Indian treaties transferred some , square miles of land — an area about three and a half times the size of England — to the United States, the bulk of which was passed on to white settlers. They filled up the land quickly. In , there were , settler colonists living in what became the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. By the turn of the eighteenth century, that figure had almost tripled. An additional fifty thousand settlers resided in territories that would become Ohio and Indiana. This peopling of the West was made possible only by the removal of the American Indian proprietors of the land and the disciplining of the ethnically and culturally mixed borderlands population that chose to remain.
This successful and prolonged immersion in the Atlantic marketplace ensured that the southern states would continue to be major exporters of agricultural staple products such as tobacco, rice, indigo, sugar and, above all, cotton. Due to their mode of production, the expansion of these staples also caused the expansion of slavery. In , close to , persons, almost one in five inhabitants, were enslaved in the United States. In , they were four million. They too have to be part of our account of who came to rule at home.
Indian removal and decimation, and the demographic and geographic expansion of slavery, point to the need to look beyond the overt political struggles of white males when analysing the distribution of power and social resources that resulted from the constitutional settlement of In fact, the vast majority of early American inhabitants lived under the authority of a master who possessed far-reaching rights to their bodies, labour and property.
So-called household government formed the bedrock of the American republics. Social and legal historians have shown how, under its laws, wives were subject to their husbands, children to their father, and servants to their master. Household government cannot be dismissed as a marginal phenomenon because for most people it was the only government they knew. The question of who, in the most literal sense, was to rule at home is central to any story of the American founding that aims at inclusiveness.
The Constitution is silent on the law of the household for the simple reason that, having been a matter of state regulation before , it remained so afterwards. Rather than radical reform, the citizens of the newly independent American states and their elected leaders chose to perpetuate and accentuate a socio-legal order put in place during colonial times. On the contrary, a core element of republican citizenship was the power of the citizen over his dependents. Household government was complemented by local government institutions — town meetings, county courts, slave patrols — which stepped in when masters failed to maintain or control their household dependents and which co-ordinated and administered tasks that individual households could not undertake on their own — such as poor relief, road construction and adjudication.
Like the rights and duties of citizens and their dependents, these institutions were created and regulated by state rather than federal law. If the Constitution was a federal treaty, investigations of the struggle over who should rule at home, in all its complexity, need to pay attention to the federal government but also to look carefully at what was happening in state assemblies and town meetings. But such investigations cannot stop there. They have to go beyond even the politics of the street to investigate power structures and power struggles in the allegedly apolitical spaces of the court room and the workplace, the congregation, the orphanage, the asylum, and the household and the family.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents.
- Navigation menu;
- 8. Addendum!
Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Citation. Permissions Icon Permissions. Abstract The origin of the United States Constitution is a perennial question in American historiography. For comments and suggestions on different versions of this article the author would like to thank Peter Onuf, Susanna Rabow-Edling, and the participants of the Cambridge American History Seminar, in particular Nick Guyatt and Gary Gerstle.
- North American Union - Wikipedia?
- Westward Expansion Articles.
- The Land of the Future: British Accounts of the USA at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century;
- The Big Book of Icebreakers: Quick, Fun Activities for Energizing Meetings and Workshops (Big Book Series).
- Writing About Magic: Professional Techniques for Paranormal and Fantasy Fiction (Writers Craft Book 3)?
The historiography is discussed in Robert E. Daniel T. Peter S. Other attempts to present this argument in systematic form are David C. Charles A. In addition to Beard, leading Progressive historians in the early twentieth century included Carl L. Becker, J. Schlesinger, Sr. In the neo-Progressive generation, the leading scholar is Merrill Jensen, who trained around fifty graduate students at the University of Wisconsin, many of whom would become influential historians in their own right.
The subsequent development of their perspective is traced in Alfred F. Young and Gregory H. Historians Interpret the Founding New York, A recent example of the staying power of the Progressive interpretation is Michael J. Jensen, Articles of Confederation , xiii—xiv, 7—15, —10, —45; Jensen, New Nation , 3—5, 21—3, 42—53, —8, —, —8.
The idea that the non-elite had an impact on the Constitution by being on the minds of the framers was presented by Alfred F.
North American Union - Wikipedia
Lynd then went on to argue that the compromise over slavery was the crucial event of the Constitutional convention necessary to bring together northern and southern elites in the reform of the Union. See further below, n. Beard dismissed the impact of the non-voting working class in Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States , Beard and Mary R. Matson and Peter S. Jack P. Greene, Peripheries and Center , 2—12, quotation at Pocock eds. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws , ed. Anne M. Merrill Jensen Madison, Wis.
Lindert and Jeffery G. Michael P. Daniel H. Golove and Daniel J. Oxford, , i, Levy and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. Onuf eds. Hendrickson, Peace Pact , 10; Max M. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations , ed. Gray and Jane Kamensky eds. Carter, II eds. In the Progressive tradition, Staughton Lynd was unusual in stressing the role of slavery in the making of the Constitution.
Max M. In the Bilderberg group stated there was:. It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities ………. A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority…….. European Union acolytes have been keen to point out that many of these ideas had already been openly discussed elsewhere, prior to the Bilderberg meeting.
They need to provide some evidence to substantiate this view. In Bilderberg Chairman Etienne Davignon revealed, not only the Bilderberg Groups determination to forge ahead with the European Project no matter what, but also its total disregard for the sovereignty of nations and the people of Europe. He then told reporters the group could do this in the same way they helped create the Euro in the s. In a moment of jaw dropping arrogance, in reference to nations whose populations had previously indicated their desire to leave the EU notably the people of the Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands he said:.
Why indeed? Much as it has always been. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly.
He need not have concerned himself. The Lisbon Treaty, containing the clauses paving the way for a centrally controlled European superstate, with its own fully functioning central bank, was ratified by 59 people, creating the EU on December 13th This was entirely consistent with the plan suggested 52 years earlier by the Bilderberg Group. Due to the apparent dichotomy between capitalism and communism, historians have consistently viewed late 19th to late 20th century history through the narrow confines of this ideological conflict.
The post WWII period has seen it proliferate on a monumental scale, thanks to the monetary system. The bank bailouts in were not the product of socialism, fascism, democracy, communism or any other form of accepted socio-economic or political ideology. Sun Tzu was right when he observed:. It seems likely that exposure has reduced the influence of the Bilderberg group, as a decision making body, to a certain degree. Little stays local anymore. Just about anyone and anything, from tourists, terrorists, and refugees to e-mails, diseases, dollars, and greenhouse gases, can reach almost anywhere.
The result is that what goes on inside a country can no longer be the concern of that country alone. The most comprehensive deception played upon us is that we were convinced to ignore something which, in our hearts, we have always known to be true. We are now all convinced that it is we, the people, who are in charge of our own destinies.
We actually believe the governments we elect serve us, despite the fact there is no evidence to substantiate this belief. Regardless of all our wars and revolutions, a tiny group of people have more money and power than the rest of the world put together. Money is power and they have an unlimited supply. The EU is and always has been, their project. We, the people, are simply expendable pawns in their continuing strategy of global tension.
Please wait while you are being authenticated Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Conspiracy Theory? Leave a comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. The EU is trying to make life as hard as possible for independent blogs like In This Together because it wants to shut down freedom of speech. Canada's central bank governor is quoted in the cable as having said that a monetary union is "an issue that should be considered once we have made more progress towards establishing a single market. It was described by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States as a dialogue to provide greater cooperation on security and economic issues.
In May , the Task Force published a report praising the SPP initiative and pushing for greater economic integration by The Task Force's recommendations included developing a North American common market and security perimeter, among other common goals. The SPP initiative was officially ended in August though the North American Leaders' Summit and most of the working groups set up under the initiative remain active. Several advocates of integration saw the SPP as being insufficient. One criticism was that the governments lacked a "vision of what North America might become" and as such did not provide the proper context that would allow the initiative to deal with barriers to deeper integration.
In , claims emerged from critics of North American integration that a "North American Union" was not only being planned, but was being implemented by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These critics cited the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and claimed it was an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures, a critique heightened by the subsequent publication of the Independent Task Force on North America report which praised the SPP initiative and called for greater economic integration by While a broad spectrum of observers criticize the secrecy of the SPP and its dominance by business groups,  the specific claim that its true aim was to expand NAFTA into a North American Union analogous to the European Union EU , with open borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the fall of , when conservative commentators Phyllis Schlafly , Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips started a website dedicated to quashing what they perceived as the coming North American "Socialist mega-state".
The belief that a North American Union was being planned and implemented in secret became widespread, so much so that the NAU was a topic of debate during the American presidential campaigns and the subject of various U. Congressional resolutions   designed to thwart its implementation. Prominent critics such as Lou Dobbs , then an employee of CNN  and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul  denounced the concept, joined by left-wing nationalist groups in Canada,  Internet blogs, and widely viewed videos and films such as " Zeitgeist ".
These beliefs are the latest example of a long line of erroneous conspiracy theories which suggest that the United States' sovereignty is being eroded by a cabal of foreign and domestic players. Concepts of a North American Union share a number of common elements between them. The "amero" is the appellation given to what would be the North American Union's counterpart to the euro.
It was first proposed in by Canadian economist Herbert G. Robert Pastor , vice-chairman of the Independent Task Force on North America , supported Grubel's conclusions in his book Toward a North American Community , stating that: "In the long term, the amero is in the best interests of all three countries. Howe Institute , advocates the creation of a shared currency between Canada and the United States. Treasury Department by an employee of that organization. Snopes has assessed both Turner's story and the existence of the amero as false.
Representative and candidate for the Republican nomination in the presidential election Duncan Hunter successfully offered an amendment to H. Hunter stated that:. This amendment will provide Congress the opportunity to exercise oversight of the highway, which remains a subject of question and uncertainty, and ensure that our safety and security will not be compromised in order to promote the business interests of our neighbors .
In , the Texas Legislature repealed its authorization for the establishment and operation of the Trans-Texas Corridor. In , President of Mexico Vicente Fox said in an interview for Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy that in the long term he sought with the United States a "convergence of our two economies, convergence on the basic and fundamental variables of the economy, convergence on rates of interest, convergence on income of people, convergence on salaries. In September , U. The bill never left committee. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez stated in "There is no secret plan to create a North American union, or a common currency, or to intrude on the sovereignty of any of the partner nations".
Bush called concerns of a North American Union "political scare tactics" and described as "comical" the "difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Theoretical economic and political continental union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Main article: North American integration. Main article: North American monetary union. May Council on Foreign Relations Press. Retrieved