The doctrine of sovereignty is also strongly stated. It is conceived as the "original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects;"1 an essential quality of the state, indeed the most indispensable mark of statehood. "Really the state cannot be conceived," says Burgess, "without sovereignty, i.e. without unlimited power over its subjects; that is its very essence." There is no other power, no association or organization which can be conceived as limiting the state in its control over its subjects, for the authority which could exercise such power would itself be sovereign. It is true that the state may abuse its unlimited power, and wrong the individual under its control, but the national state is after all "the human organ least likely to do wrong." Moreover, this unlimited power on the part of the state necessitates no apology to civil liberty for its existence, since this very power is the real guaranty of and security for individual liberty; and hence the more completely and really sovereign the state is, the more secure is the liberty of the individual. 2 From the principle that sovereignty is a unit, it follows that the so-called "federal state" is an impossibility. What seems such, is either a number of sovereign states, having an equal number of local governments and a common central government, or one sovereign state having a central 1 Political Science, I, 52. Cf. review of Laband. 2 Ibid. I, 57. government and several local governments.1 There may be a federal system of government in which the sovereign state allots certain powers to the central government, and others to the local governments. But in this case the sovereignty is in no way divided, and there is no federal state. Sovereignty, it is urged, "is entire or not at all," and what remains to the former states under such a system of government is only "the residuary powers of government," which are by no means equivalent to sovereignty or any portion thereof. The sovereignty remains with the central state, undivided and indivisible. Applying these principles to the United States, it is seen that the characteristics of a nation have been clearly evident here from the beginning, although not always accorded full recognition. The political system of the United States is a dual government, with the ultimate sovereignty resting in the nation. The nation has organized the central government, indicated a sphere of individual liberty, and given to the commonwealth residuary powers of government. The so-called "states are not sovereign or semi-sovereign, but merely organs of government for the nation. "It is no longer proper," says Burgess, "to call them states at 1 Ibid. I, 79 ff.; II, 10 ff. 2 Cf. W. W. Willoughby, The Nature of the State, especially the interesting discussion in Chap. X on the nature of the composite state. all. It is in fact only a title of honor, without any corresponding substance." The commonwealths are, strictly speaking, neither sovereign nor states, and to call them either is inaccurate and misleading. Attention is called to the diminishing importance of the "states" in our political system, in contrast with the rapidly increasing power and influence of the modern city, and serious doubt is raised as to the ability of the "state" to hold its place as a unit of government in our political system, if the influences operating during the last half century continue uninterrupted.1 The development of American political theory in relation to the nature of the Union may now be summarized as follows. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and for a considerable period thereafter, it was believed that the Union was of a peculiar and anomalous character, and that the sovereignty, so far as vested in government, was divided between the states and the United States. The real sovereign was thought to be the "people," but whether this meant the 1 On the real place of the states see Political Science Quarterly, Vol. I, "The American Commonwealth." On the relation between civil liberty and nationality, see Political Science, I, 224. Woodrow Wilson maintains that the members of the Union are still genuine states, although their "sphere is limited by the presiding and sovereign powers of a State superordinated to them they have dominion; it has sovereignty." An Old Master and other Political Essays (1893), 94. ... people of the United States as a whole or the people of the several states was left undetermined. As the contest between nationalism and statesrights became more acute, this middle position was abandoned by both parties. Calhoun contended that the sovereign people were the people of the several states, and that the sovereignty was, moreover, essentially indivisible. The states were hence sovereign communities, and the general government had only the powers delegated to it by them. On the other hand, the nationalist position was defended by Webster, who declared that the Constitution was adopted by the people of the United States as a whole, by means of an agreement as binding as the social contract. After the war had settled the vexed question of secession, the new school of nationalists developed and strengthened the earlier doctrine. The argument from the letter of the law was less emphasized and the consideration of social and political facts made more conspicuous. The nation was declared supreme, but this differed from the earlier "people" in that the contract idea was largely eliminated, and the organic and evolutionary character of the nation given greater attention. Calhoun's doctrine of the indivisibility of sovereignty was accepted, but sovereignty was claimed for the Union to the exclusion of the states, which were relegated to the position of organs of the nation. Differences of opinion appeared as to the exact location of the sovereignty, whether with the nation as an aggregation of individuals or as an aggregation of states; but the sovereignty of the Union was undisputed. Looking back over the development of the United States, a great growth in national spirit and sentiment is at once observed. In 1787, the general attitude toward the central government was that of suspicion and distrust, if not of open hostility. Liberty was regarded as local in character, and the states as the great champions of the individual. The greater the power of the central government, the greater the danger to the freedom of the citizen. "Consolidated "Consolidated" government was considered as equivalent to tyranny and oppression. A century of national development has reversed this attitude. The states are now looked upon with more suspicion than is the national government, and it is frequently considered a matter of congratulation when a given subject falls under federal administration. It is no longer generally feared that human liberty is menaced by the federal government, and protected only by the states. Denunciation of the United States as a consolidated fabric" of "aristocratical tyranny" is seldom heard, but certain states are sometimes denominated as "rotten boroughs." The state has in fact in many cases become a less important unit, economically, politically, and socially than the city, and, on the whole, the tendency of this time is overwhelmingly national, both in fact and in theory. |