la constitución de una nación logra superar la división causada por la ambición de poder ?
Respuestas a la pregunta
Respuesta:
This PHD dissertation studies the evolution of the concept of nationhood in the
United States from the Declaration of Independence till the Civil War. The American
historiography, despite the fact it recognizes the weakness of the federal government
before the War of the States, has assumed the United States were a nation since the
Declaration of Independence.
This essay proposes an alternative view, which denies the existence of an
American nation, understood as a modern political entity which deserves supreme
allegiance from every citizen belonging to it, before 1865. Instead, the United States
witnesses the development of two different nations, North and South, which will
eventually become enemies, inside a weak federal state. This was possible because the
several states maintained their sovereignty.
The main evidences supporting this argument were: the word nation is not present
in the Constitution; they did not chose a distinguish name for the Union of the States,
the Americans merely used the name of the continent to identify themselves; the
reluctance of the states to give their approval to the Constitution; the understanding
that the States remained sovereigns; the rejection of federal measures that were
against the interest of a particular state; the bitter animosities between New England
and Virginia, which were inherited from the colonial period and will be increased
because of the fight for the control of the West; and the lack of nationalism in the
North during 1812 and 1846 wars.
This work surveys relevant milestones in the process of nation building: the
Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the creation of the
national domain, the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the rise of first
national party system, the 11th amendment, the 1800 election, the Hartford
Convention, and the set of Compromises that appease the sectional animosities: 1790,
which sets the place of the national capital; 1820, which divides the Louisiana
purchase between North and South; 1833, which avoids a conflict between South
Carolina and the Jackson Administration on account of the tariff and 1850, which
establish the principle of popular sovereignty in the territories annexed from Mexico.
From my point of view, the longevity of the Constitution is the history of a failure
traditionally shown as a success. The institutional framework designed by the
Founding Fathers was not capable of containing sectional conflict and its ambiguity
contributed to increase them. Lack of recognition of the sectional reality in the
Constitution prevents the addition of counterbalance mechanisms to protect the vital
interest of these sections. Without these guarantees, weaker sections were reluctant to
allow a broad interpretation of the Constitution, because they perceived the general
government as a threat to their essential rights and interest.
When a section feels its powers were decreasing, conflict unavoidably arise. In
1815, New England called the Hartford Convention because its ruling class sensed
their union with the southern states was a burden which requires additional
amendments to the Constitution to prevent further grievances. In 1860, the Deep
South states seceded when they realized the North can win a presidential election
completely ignoring the electorate of the southern states. Since the North proposed a
6
national view that was in contradiction with fundamental southern interest, secession
looked like a natural choice.
Explicación: