The three models of territorial integration we analyzed in Teaching Guide 8: namely the Composite monarchies, the Swiss Confederation and the German Customs Union (Zollverein) were not efficient enough for guaranteeing a strong union.
This is why a stronger model of integration appeared at the end of the 18th century. It was created overseas, in a brand new country called the United States. Recognized internationally in 1783 in the Treaty of Versailles, signed after the British Crown lost the Independence war, the initial 13 colonies, transformed in independent states, had only a loose bond: the Articles of Confederation.
The 13 American British colonies before 1776
Created provisionally in 1777 for ensuring a united action in the military field of the 13 rebel colonies that were at war against England, The Articles of Confederation were not an efficient operational structure for times of peace. Something that the founders of the new nation found out soon, when they realized that not developping a stronger union could jeopardize the new Nation, as it could not stand against the two powerful monarchies standing at its borders: The Spanish Monarchy in the South and the United Kingdom in the North.
The Founding Fathers were very pragmatic and this is why they came up with a new type of bond: the Federal Union. It created a supra State over the 13 individual States with a common strong Executive: the President of the United States. This is why the system was also called "Presidential"
1. Federalism: an effective way to enable different states to act together
"Federalism" comes from the Latin word, foedus, meaning 'treaty', 'compact' or 'contract'. Foedus comes itself from the word, fides, meaning 'trust'.
We have already seen in Teaching Guide 8 different ways in which independent territories : -kingdoms, states, cantons- agree to cooperate to get stronger. Under a same sovereign (Composite monarchies), signing an agreement of confederation like the Swiss Rutli Oath of 1291, or adopting a “treaty” of economic cooperation, as it was the case of the Zollverein, the 19th century German Customs Union.
The Federal union goes a step further. Some independent states decide to act together, and for strengthening their union, they decide to have a common legal link; a Federal constitution that creates a new State over the preexistent cooperating states. The federal model turned out to be a very efficient way of making a really strong union.
All this seems a little complicated and confusing in theory. But it becomes much simpler if we follow a concrete historic example, concretely if we look at how appeared the first modern Federal state: The United States of America.
2. A Confederation of 13 States to fight the British.
We already know from Teaching Guide 4 how the British colonization of North America ended up founding 13 different colonies and how these, after the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, got together to fight the British Crown. In order to lead war against their common enemy the 13 different colonies agreed on signing in 1777 a cooperation agreement: the Articles of Confederation.
Once they won the War in 1783 this Agreement became the first US common Constitution as it was compulsory for the new 13 independent States. But it was a very weak legal bond, because every state kept its own constitution, government institutions and legal system. The only common institution that kept this bunch of states together was the Continental Congress, a non permanent Assembly where the 13 States sent elective representatives.
The problem was that the new 13 States only met in Congress when they were in trouble, and even so, if they agreed on anything it was extremely difficult to implement the common decision as they had not a common budget, nor a common executive to enforce the agreement.
That Congress was clearly not a very operative instrument for facing crisis was evident when one of the new State Massachusetts had to face its own “revolution” in 1786: the Shay Rebellion.
Daniel Shay, an angry farmer that had lost his property for not having been able to pay his mortgage, decided to rebel against Massachusetts government with other farmers that were in the same situation. The anarchy resulting from the rebellion could not be prevented by the Congress under the regime of the Articles of Confederation. They had not a strong executive and did not have common taxes for raising an army. Finally the mess created by Shay had to be solved by the wealthy citizens of Massachusetts who paid from their pocket an army to reduce the rebels.
The good news was that the Shay Rebellion was a lousy precedent that rendered the US Founding Fathers nervous and forced them to lobby for reaching a stronger union creating a Federal bond. But they had to overcome a strong opposition of the Anti-Federalists that wanted to preserve at any cost the independence of the 13 States.
3. The Federal Debate
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and some other capital figures of the new US nation considered that the 13 Colonies could not survive a major crisis, especially if the British, the French or the Spanish –in this time countries much more powerful than the United States- decided to attack them. So they understood they needed a tighter union to get stronger.
A big debate started between, on one side those defending that states should remain completely autonomous, and others that considered that disunited they would not survive against the Big European Monarchies, and therefore they considered the “Federal way” the best option for consolidating a more solid tie among the confederate states. To make it short: they wanted a stronger union more operative that would ensure a greater protection over internal anarchy situations like Shay’s rebellion or external dangers from apossible attack coming from international powerful nations.
The federalists considered that the only way to create a stronger and more permanent union was to approve a new common constitution as this "basic agreement" (Grundnorm) was necessary to create "legally" a brand new super state. Of course as many members of the Continental Congress were very reluctant to accept a superior power over the individual member states, the federal union was limited only to certain areas expressly defined in the constitutional text.
The Federal debate was long and fierce as the representatives of some States did not want to give up their full autonomy. But finally, adversaries reached a compromise that was set in writing in a very short new common constitution (September 1787).
The new Union had a strong President elected by the States and a powerful Congress integrated by a double legislature: one representing the states (Senate) and another one representing the citizens (House of Representatives). And then there was a US Supreme Court that represented the Judicial power of the new Super State. There was a very strict separation of powers in order to avoid the new Federal state being too powerful and ensure that the new structure would be controlled by the states integrated in it.
Finally the US Constitution, after being approved in 1787 required a complex ratification process, that included the enactment of a Bill of Rights (1791) that became legal limits to the power of the new Federal state. They ended up having constitutional value as they became the first 10 amendments to the new Constitution. When all the 13 colonies got finally into the Federal Union, they elected as first President George Washington (1789-1797).
The US Federal State was however still not fully consolidated when the Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson was elected as the third US President in March 1801. Jefferson thought that the Federal Union had gone too far and was far too strong. So he tried to weaken it by giving back power to the States.
(cropped).jpg)
But fortunately for the US Federal Union, the former President John Adams (1797-1801) had put in office as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall (1801-1835) who was a convinced federalist and did not share the antifederalist views of Jefferson.
So when Thomas Jefferson tried to give back power to the states in detriment of the Federal Union, John Marshall decided that he could not do so at the Legislative level because it was a violation of the US Constitution. Through the landmark decision of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) Marshall established that the US Supreme Court was the top power in the Federal State as it had the power of interpreting the US Constitution. And no law from the Legislature or no decision from the US President could in any case violate the constitution. Marshall invented what technically was called: the Judicial Review principle that established the supremacy of the constitution over politics. This strict application of the Rule of Law preserved the Federal Union. Law is the best remedy against social disintegration.
But the Judicial Review was not enough to consolidate the federal way, because states remained deeply divided about one crucial question: Slavery. Some States (essentially in the South) relied economically on slaves of the big plantations, while others (in the North) had small properties and a lot of industry. The expansion of the Union from the 13 initial States to the actual 50, was performed mainly through the legal instrument called the Northwest Ordinance of July 1787, (implemented two months before the approval of the US Constitution), because initially it was provided for the lands situated in the Northwest Territory that includes the actual states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. But at the end, as it was fully operational, was used to integrate most of the new 37 states to the Union.
Originally there was a balance between Slave and Free States in the common federal institutions as the Missouri Compromise (1820) established that new states could be added only if was respected the balance between slave and free states. But as the US kept on growing, were added new territories and new states and the moment arrived when the Free States outnumbered the Slave States. As the latter could not accept the sitution they decided to secede from the Union and create a new Union not as tight as the Federal, that was called The Confederation.
4. Preventing the dismantlement of the Federal Union through Civil War
The secession of the Southern Slave States was not accepted by the Northern Fee States and that led to a devastating Civil War (1861-1865) between the Slave and the Free States. At the end, Lincoln won the war and the Federal Union was preserved, but at what cost.
The North and the Federal States won and the US were saved as a strong country. Nevertheless the causes that brought the US Civil War persist to a certain extent. Despite the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery in some states Black people endure a difficult situation. I would recommend two movies if you want to realize what all this meant: Lincoln (2012) from Steven Spielberg starring Daniel Day-Lewis
And Free State Jones (2016) of Gary Ross starring Matthew McConaughey. Both impressive.
The huge fight for civil rights that Malcolm X, Angela Davies or Martin Luther King endured during the 1960’s persist with movements like Black Lives Matters.
And as far as the Federal Government is concerned, there are still today tensions between the Republicans that defend the independence of the States and the Democrats who on the contrary are always willing to reinforce the Federal power.
5. Copying the American Federal Union
The important point for us Europeans is that, despite all these problems, the US are a World power because they have been able to consolidate a very useful legal tool: a strong Federal Union that is compatible with a considerable autonomy of its member states. Despite the difficulties of its consolidation, the American Federal State has become a very Powerful Union that in our days still has a determinant influence in the whole World.
The Federal way has definitely worked in the American case, and this is why “plural states” all over the world have chosen the Federal model and the Presidential System to consolidate the union among its parts. This is why, besides the United States of America, the Federal Model was finally adopted by some important states as Mexico (since 1824), Argentina (since 1853), Canada (since 1867), Brazil (1889), Australia (since 1891), Germany (since 1949), the Republic of India (since 1950), or the Russian Federation (since 1991).
It is not the case of Spain, a country that, as you know, come from a composite monarchy model, and has not achieved the unification of all its t-historical territories in a centralized model of state. Spain tried to become a Federal State in 1873, but it was failure. Since 1931 Spain tried a weird formula: a unitary state but highly decentralized in Autonomies. The Spanish Second Republic (1931-1939) was organized as a sort of decentralised model of state under the weird name of “Integral State”. At least after 1978 Constitutional Spain is officially dubbed the State of the Autonomies. Clearer but fstil far from being fully operational, as this ambiguous system does not prevent that in some “Autonomies” there are strong movements in favour of total independence: Namely the Bask Provinces and Catalonia.
The Federal Union in principle was not appropriate for European States. As they were far too powerful at the end of the 18th century and during the 19th century to even consider the possibility of getting together in a federal way. However, after the two disastrous World Wars of the first half of the 20th century that destroyed European States, European Governments started considering the possibility of adopting the Federal model, as a way of unite and get back the possibility of having some influence at the World level after 1945.
6. A Federal option for a disunited Europe
Adopting the Federal model in Europe so far, however, has proven to be very difficult for several reasons: 1) European States had been independent for centuries, 2) they did not share the language, 3) they had a private history, and 4) they did not have common institutions.
Remember that after the signing of the Westphalia Treaty (1648), the Universal model (Roman Universalism) gave way to a Europe of independent States that fought each other (from 1648 to 1945) to reach the supremacy in the Old continent. And after the French Revolution and the appearance of the nation-state, "patriotism" and "nationalism" made things far more difficult. This is why, as you have seen in Teaching Guide 5, all along the 19th century European Nation-States were extremely keen in keeping intact their sovereignty in the context of the Colonial expansion. A situation that brought the Armed Peace, and, finally, World War I, the disaster of the Versailles Treaty (1919), World War II and the disappearance of Europe as a World power.
Only when Europe was in ruins in 1918, some eminent figures started considering that European States they should get together in order to form a powerful union at the world level to confront the US and the USSR.
There were some theoretical approaches at integration, like the Pan-European Movement of Count Coudenhove Kalergi (1923) or the Briand’s proposal for a European Union (1929). But they failed due to the rising tensions of strong nationalisms, especially on the part of Italy and Germany. Hitler's Lebensraum led to another European suicide: World War Two.
It is interesting however that even between 1939 and 1945 each side tried to reinforce some kind of union of States to get stronger. On the allies side we have to mention the short attempt for a Franco-British Union (June 1940) tried by De Gaulle and Churchill.
On the Hitler's side the Third Reich tried to create a United Europe under the banner of National-Socialism creating a network of Vassal States.
As a reaction there was also a anti-hitlerian Europe with different initiatives to develop a way for European integration. The most effective one was the customs and economic union created by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg: the BENELUX (5 September 1944).
After the end of the war in the spring of 1945, followed some years of disarray for Europe. A period in which the destroyed European States were initially obliged to ask Americans for money in order to survive. First in total disorder creating a Dollar gap, and, finally, in 1947, thanks to the initiative Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall they got a coordinated aid.
You already have heard about the Marshall Plan. But let me underline that it was a great idea. Not only because of the money, but because it obliged the needing European States to work together if they wanted to receive any American aid for reconstruction. The Marshall Plan could be considered from this perspective the first step towards a united Europe after World War II.
The success of the Marshall Plan gave way to the first real attempt of creating an integrated Europe. I am talking about the Congress of The Hague (may 1948), aimed at establishing a Federal Europe. At the end it was a failure, but at least it enabled the foundation of the Council of Europe (1949), with its extremely useful Human Rights Court that from Strasbourg protect Europeans citizens from the abuses of their respective governments.
Nevertheless it was clear that in 1949 the World belonged to the Americans and the Russians. If Europeans wanted to survive they had to get together. But once discarded the federal model, they had to find their own way: the Communitarian Method. And this is what we are going to see in the three last Teaching Guides of the present course
INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 211 to 252), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions.
Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 253-254) You should get familiar with all the dates.
TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Would you like a Federal option for Europe?
Please consider the following aspects:
1. Understand the essence of the Federal model of State integration. Consider the differences with other models: Empire, Composite monarchies or Confederation.
2. Consider the US Federal approach. Why it appeared. Which were the main difficulties it faced for assuring its consolidation. How work the relationship between the States and the Federal State.
3. How should European States proceed in order to move to a Federal Europe.
