THE FEDERAL OPTION

Today we will consider what so far is the most efficient way of integrating different States in a coherent and efficient union: the Federal Union. We will get acquainted with how the model appeared in a concrete historical circumstance in a concrete group of States: the US Confederation. And how since then it has become the best option for integrating states in a durable and operative way.

The 13 American colonies got together for the first time in order to fight a common enemy: the British Crown. This is why they agreed on signing the Articles of Confederation in 1777.  But when they won the war and became 13 different independent States initially they did not wished a stronger union. For ten years every North American State had its onw constitution, its own government and its own Legal System. The only common institution they shared was the Continental Congress. A non permanent Assembly where the 13 States had elective representatives.  They met when they had a problem, and if they decided anything it was extremely difficult to implement the decision as they had not a common budget, nor a common executive for enforce what was agreed. Congress nevertheless was not a good instrument to face crisis, even a small problem like the one that affected the State of Massachusetts in 1786: the Shay Rebellion. 

The anarchy resulting from the rebellion of an angry farmer could not be prevented by the Congress, and finally the wealthy citizens of Massachusetts had to pay from their pocket an army to reduce the rebels. 

George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and most of the other founding fathers of the new nation considered that the 13 Colonies could not survive a major crisis, especially if the British, the French or the Spanish decided  to attack them. So they started a big debate considering the Federalist option, that is creating a super state over the individual states that could be more operative and ensure a greater protection over internal or external dangers.  It was a long and fierce debate as many States did not want to give up their full autonomy. 

Finally they reached a compromise : create a short common constitution, with a strong President elected by the States and a double legislature: one representing the states (Senate) and another one representing the citizens (House of Representatives), and a very strict separation of powers. Everything to ensure that the Federal State could be controlled by the states integrated in it. Finally after the approval of the US Constitution in September 1787, a complex ratification process, that required the approval of the Bill of Rights (that became the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution), the 13 colonies got into the Union and elected as first President George Washington (1789-1797). 

The US Federal State was not however not consolidated. It could have been weakened by the election of the Antifederalist Thomas Jefferson, but fortunately the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall (1801-1835) established the supremacy of the constitution over politics. 

                                                                             John Marshall (1801-1835)

The other problem was the expansion of the Union from the 13 initial States to the actual 50 through the legal instrument called the Northwest Ordinance of July 1787. A long process that did not go without tensions, including a devastating Civil War (1861-1865) between the Slave and the Free States. And even today there are tensions between the Republicans that want more power for the States and the Democrats willing to reinforce the Federal power. 

The important point is that despite all the problems the US are a World power because they developed a strong Federal union which is compatible with the autonomy of its member states. This is why many states all over the world have chosen the Federal model and the Presidential System (as Mexico or Russia, for instance). And this why the federal option was greatly considered by some Europeans after the sinking of the European States in the two World Wars that had shaken the Old continent in the first half of the 20th Century. 

Nevertheless bringing the Federal model to Europe has proven to be far more difficult for one reason: European States have been independent for centuries, they do not share the language or similar institutions and they are, especially since the end of the 18th century extremely keen on their sovereignty. After the signing of the Westphalia Treaty, after the French Revolution and all along the 19th century. Only when European States were in ruins in 1918 they started considering that they should get together in order to remain powerful at the world level and face the US and the USSR. 

                                                                    The Franco British Union (June 1940)

But despite some attempts at integration, like the Pan-European Movement of Count Coudenhove Kalergi (1923) or the Briands proposal for a European Union (1929), rising tensions due to strong nationalism 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 to get stronger. We have to mention the short attempt for a Franco-British Union (June 1940), how Hitler tried to create a United Europe under the banner of National-Socialism and how in anti-hitlerian Europe they were 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). 

                                                                                                 Hitlerian Europe

After 1945 followed some years of disarray while the destroyed European States asked Americans for money in total disorder creating a Dollar gap. Until George Marshall in 1947 established a coordinated aid that obliged the needed European States to work together if they wanted American money for reconstruction. 

This period led to the first real attempt of creating an integrated Europe. An attempt that aimed at establishing a Federal Europe in the Congress of the Hague (may 1948). 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  from their respective States. 

                                                                        The Hague Congress (1948)

Nevertheless in 1949 it seemed impossible that the different European States could try to follow the same path in anything. The World belonged to the Americans and the Russians. 

 

                                                                      Churchill speaking at the Hague Congress

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 procede in order to move to a Federal Europe.  

HISTORIC MODELS OF STATE INTEGRATION

 Despite de persistence of the Universal model in the European continent, from 800 to 1945, after 1648 we face a Europe of States. The consequence is the constant quarreling for hegemony for almost 300 years. 

In order to be more powerful kingdoms and states in European history have always tried to expand territorially. One way was war. The other one is the integration of different kingdoms or states into a larger political unit. We will examine today some of them. 

 The oldest model of integration was the Composite monarchy. This occurs when a king becomes simultaneously the monarch of different kingdoms. This does not mean however full unification as in Composite monarchies every member kingdom keep its constitutional status intact. Their own political institutions (Assembly of States) their own law and courts. And also, usually, a customs barrier protection. We will study two actual states that followed the way of the Composite monarchies: Spain and the UK. 

Concerning Spain bear in mind that the Catholic Kings (1474-1504) did not integrate Castile and Aragon. The Crown of Castile was a unified state and the Crown of Aragon a Composite monarchy. Isabel and Fernando did not unify their Spanish domains. And neither did their grandson Carlos I (V). Castile was a consolidated State and the Crown of Aragon was not. This is why in the Catholic Composite Monarchy that was the result of the joining of Castile and Aragon, Castile ended being dominant. And the common language was Castilian.

We have to wait until the Spanish Succession War (1704-1715) and the defeat of Aragon, Valencia, Aragon and Mallorca to have these kingdoms integrated and unified in Castile (Decretos de Nueva Planta).  As Navarre and the Basqs provinces had not rebelled against Philip V, they kept their own separate constitutional and legal frame. At least until the Carlists wars in the 19th century. Then Navarre (1841) and Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (1876) got integrated as well in the Spanish State. 

But the tradition of the Composite monarchy did not disappear and Spain is not today a completely unified state as the independentists movements of Catalonia and the Basq country shows. The composite monarchy model is not fully operative in terms of constructing a strong and unified state. 

It is also the case of the UK. England integrated Wales in the 16th century and Scotland in the 17th-18th centuries, forming the United Kingdom with the Union Jack. And Ireland from 1800 to 1922. But the union is not as solid as it appears. Ireland became in the 20th century an independent State (with the exception of Northern Ireland). And after Brexit Scotland and Northern Ireland are looking for an indepent status as most of its citizens are not happy about Brexit. Again the Composite monarchy system does not guarantee a strong unified State. 

 We have another formula of state integration in the case of the Swiss Confederation, that started with the Rutli Oath in 1291 and receive full international recognition in the Peace of Westphalia. Nevertheless in the Confederation the 26 cantons have more power than the federal government in Bern. Even today. A Confederation is therefore a quite weak form of integration.  

 As integrating politically the European states was impossible, in the 19th century some other partial ways of integration appeared. It was the case of the Metternich System based in the Holy Alliance of 1815, that disappeared completely in 1848.  And the practical customs unions of the German States headed by Prussia in the Zolverein created in 1818 and consolidated by 1834. An important precedent of the present European Communitarian system of integration.

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 191 to 203), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 205-209) the crucial dates are the following: 

Survival of the Universal Model: 

800, 962, 1804, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918 and 1933-1945. 

Crown of Aragon: 

1137, 1164-1196, 1276, 1283, 1349, 1442, 1474-1504 (Catholic kings), 1517-1556 (Carlos I), 1707-1716 (Nueva Planta Decrees), 1841 (Navarra Ley Paccionada), 1876 (Full integration of Basq Provinces), 18178 (Concierto económico), 1931 (Estado integral), 1978 (Estado de las autonomías).

The United Kingdom: 

1535-1542 (Integration of Wales), 1603, 1707, 1800-1922 (Irish integration in the UK), 1997 and 2014, September 18. 

Swiss Confederation: 

1291, 1648 , 1848. 

Holy Alliance:

1815-1848

Zollverein: 

1818, 1834. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Advantages and disadvantages of unified and decentralized states? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think of the “España de las Autonomías”. Consider the positive aspects of this extreme decentralized system and the inconveniences. For instance looking at how Spain faced the Covid pandemic. Do you find fair that the citizens of the Basks provinces and from Navarre pay less taxes that the rest of Spaniards? Do you think a common education and language should be guaranteed everywhere in the State?

2. Compare with the most centralized state in the world: France. Do you think education, taxing, Social Security, Courts and Law should be the same for every one? Responding to the idea that all citizens should be equal before the law?

   

EUROPE IN THE WORLD ORDER AFTER WORLD WAR 2

                                            José Borrel and Sergei Lavrov (21 February 2021)

The European Nation-States were destroyed in 1918. Economies in the Entente Allies and in the Central Powers sunk. The growth of national indebtedness, both internal and external, of the Entente Allies and the Central Powers rose from 27.883.000.000 USD in 1914 to 224,174,000,000 in the period 1918-1919. US economic output doubled in 4 years and became the leading economy of the world after the war. Before World War 1 European Nation-States had 55% of the World GDP, and in 1918 the US hold 45%. In 1914the US imported more than exported to Europe. In 1918 it was the other way round. Since 1918 the US became the leading World Power. It would remain so until 1945, and then will share world supremacy with the USSR. Until 1989. But the fall of the Communists regimes did not led to a unique American leadership and today we are facing a multipolar world where China, India and the Russian federation are challenging US supremacy. The problem is how Europe is facing the 21st century as a huge market (first GDP in the world) but with no leadership, as lacking of a strong Executive.  

We start studying the consequences of the crisis of the Laissez faire regimes replaced by totalitarianism in Russia (from 1917) and then in Italy (from 1922) and Germany (from 1933). As a result of this Europe saw tensions grow between the Communist and the Fascist models of Dictatorship.  Tensions that exploded for the first time in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) in which Stalin supported one side and Hitler and Mussolini the other one, while European and American democracies followed the non intervention principle. The Spanish carnage was only the prologue of a much greater global confrontation: World War 2, the result of Russian imperialism (founding of the Kommintern by Lenin in 1919) and the Mussolini’s expeditions in Libya, Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and especially Hitlerian Lebensraum. 

The paradox was that Stalinist Russia emerged on the side of the victors, after having started the war as Stalin ally (invasion of Poland two weeks after Hitler’s, and Katyn’s massacre from March to May 1940). Because Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon invading Russia on 22 June 1941, being stopped at Stalingrad (actual Volvograd) in the fiercest battle of the whole war (From August 23, 1942 to February 2, 1943). This paradox explains why Soviet Dictatorship was accepted by intellectuals in the Western world, and the Communist Parties depending on Moscow spreaded in Western European democracies. At least until the advent of Eurocommunism, with leaders as Italian Enrico Berlinguer, as a reaction to USSR intervention during the Dubcek’s Prague’s Spring (January-August 1968).

                                                               Prague Spring  (1968)

 The Marshall Plan (1947) will be the detonator of the Cold War (1948-1989) as Stalin would not accept American aid for developing market economy in Eastern Europe. The result was the iron curtain (Churchill) and the Berlin Wall (1961-1989).

What is interesting is that Western democracies adapted to the Social Question through the development of the Welfare State Model, that paradoxically started in the US in the 1930’s with the New Deal policy of FDR. What made nevertheless European Welfare State different was the fact that the Tax payers supported the Welfare state, which made the state much stronger in Europe than in the US, where private sector is overwhelmingly bigger that the Public sector. In Europe is the other way round. From 1945 Social Security, and Public Welfare aids were supported all over Western Europe by tax payers. Something that was initially possible thanks to the extraordinary Economic growth of the Thirty Glorious years. The problem is that the 1975 Oil crisis stopped the expansionist cycle and European states could afford less and less the Welfare State System. Which brought the anti-regulation movement of the 1980’s spearheaded by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and bringing back Laissez faire liberalism. With dreadful consequences in terms of the rising of inequalities. 

Another model was developped paradoxically in the Communist’s regimes that survived by joining the market Economy, following the example of Chinese head of State Den Xiaoping (1978-1992) who invented the new system of Market Socialism that has transformed China in a leading World Power in the 21st century. A very powerful state that surprisingly is playing full the Market rules. An amazing contradiction. But so far it works. After the collapsing of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the only two real communist countries are Cuba and North Korea. 

The “socialization” of Western capitalism and the “capitalization” of Eastern Communism has led in  very efficient way to the globalization of the World, though Capitalism after the neoliberal way has produced a substantial rising of economic and social inequalities, that is leading to a new oligarchic model of the State, despite the interesting theories of   the Legal and Political American thinker John Rawls who developped a very peculiar way of making compatible the Laissez faire principle and the protection of equality. Have you heard about the Universal income? He was the guy who brought the idea into our contemporary world. 

                                                            John Rawls (1921-2002)

The consequence of globalization from the International Relations perspective is may be the beginning of a global constitutional history starting with the League of Nations (1920-1946) and following with the United Nations (since 1945), and a bunch of Treaties and International Organizations (WTO, GATT, IMF, World Bank), that seek to rule the world through negotiation and governance instead of through authority and military intervention. 

The problem for Europe is that our old Nation States are doing very poorly at the global level. We are irrelevant compared to China, Russia, India. Fortunately the United States are keeping up the Western model but definitenly not Europe. And they did so, as we are going to see tomorrow because they invented a way of getting together in an efficiente way. Something that we Europeans have not been able to do so far. 

The most important idea you have to retain of Teaching Guide 7 is how after 1945 Europe was left far behind World leadership, despite the fact that during the big economic expansion brought by the post war reconstruction of the Thirty Glorious years (1945-1975). Prosperity did not help European nation states to join the league of the leading protagonists of the World contemporary history.  

  

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 163 to 181), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 182-186) the crucial dates are the following: 

1946 (Appearance of the Italian Republic), 1947 (Marshall Plan), 1948, June (beginning of the Berlin Blockade), 1949 (Creation of NATO, Appearance of German Federal Republic and Mao’s triumph in China), 1953 (Death of Stalin), 1958 (DE Gaulle’s in power), 1959 (Castro’s victory in Cuba), 1961 (beginning of the Berlin Wall), 1963 (JFK’s assassination), 1964 (beginning of the Vietnam War), 1966 (beginning of China’s Cultural Revolution), 1968 January-August (Prague Spring), 1973 (military coup in Chile against Allende), 1974 (Nixon’s resignation Watergate scandal), 1975 (end of Vietnam War and death of Franco), 1976 (Death of Mao), 1978 (Den Xiao Ping in Power and beginning of Market Socialism in China), 1979 (Founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran), 1985 (Gorbatchev in power in the USSR), 1989, November 9 (Fall of the Berlin Wall), 1990 (German reunification), ,1991 (Extinction of the USSR), 2001, September 11 (Islamic Terrorism hits the US), 2004, March 11 (Terrorist attack in Madrid), 2005 (Angela Merkel becomes German chancellor), 2008 (Obama becomes US President), 2014 (Juan Carlos I resigns on his son Philip VI as king of Spain, and Scottish referendum of independence), 2015 (Bataclan terrorist attack in Paris), 2016 (Brexit referendum and Donald Trump election), 2017 October 1st (Catalan independence illegal referendum), 2020, January 31 (The UK leaves the EU).

New dates: 2020, March (Expansion of COVID 19’s Pandemic all over the world), 2021 (January 6: assault on US Capitol by Trump supporters; January 20: Joe Biden takes office as the 46 US President).  

  

                                                      US Capitol on January 6, 2021

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Why Europeans despite being developed economies we do not have a decisive influence in today’s world? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Remember the History of Europe in 1919-1939, and from 1945. Especially during the Cold War period. Try to think of the most influential European leaders during this period. 

2. Think why a country like the Russian Federation where the average population is facing serious economic problems is far more influential than European nation-States today. 

3. Do the US, China, Russia, India have a powerful national narrative? If so explain why and which one. And compare with the European reality. 

                                                   Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister

4. Is the Welfare State a problem in terms of Economic growth? Read the pages about John Rawls theory (176) before answering. Is social justice (reducing inequalities) a problem for becoming a powerful country worldwide? Think about Boris Johnson following statement: "The reason we have the vaccine success is because of capitalism, because of greed, my friends." (24 March 2021)

5. Is democracy a problem for having a powerful State? Think of how Russia has been trying to destabilize Western democracies, taking advantage of local domestic conflicts (as US Presidential Elections, Catalan Conflict, Brexit). 

   

Think as well of how China has dealt with Covid 19’s Pandemic. Is authoritarianism necessary to beat the epidemic?  

THE SUICIDE OF EUROPE : 1914-1945

How was it possible that in thirty years, from 1914 to 1945, the mighty European Nation-States collapsed and disappeared from the World Front Stage? How could the insignificant States of the 15th century that in four centuries got to control the world, returned to insignificancy in such a short period. This is what we are going to analyze today from a very concrete perspective: to what extent this made clear the insufficiencies of the Nation-State model. 

We will start with apocalyptic conflict that was World War I. May be to this day the worst war in Human history, mainly because it was the first “total war”, meaning that every nation-state involved dedicated all resources, material and human, to exterminate the adversary. Al sustained by a deeply rooted xenophobic narrative nationally promoted that led in France, for instance, to the assassination of the Socialist leader Jean Jaurès (1859-31 July 1914) simply because he was a pacifist. 

 Before going further please listen to the song of the Belgian singer Jacques Brel (1929-1978) that bears the significant title of “Why they killed Jaurès” (Pour quoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?) released in 1977, in what was his last album, simply called “BREL”, before dying from cancer a few months later. 

After that you should see the Movie “Merry Christmas” (Joyeux Noël) of Christian Carion Released in 2005, and based on true events. And finally, as I guess you are developing a taste for reading, I would recommend you to read Pierre Lemaitre’s Novel “The Great Swindle” (Au revoir là haut) that enabled the author to receive in 2013 the most prestigious French Litterary price, the “Prix Goncourt.”

The suicide of the Great War led to the abrupt end of Liberalism and the return of authoritarian regimes, starting with Bolshevik Russia, and continuing with Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Dreadful dictatorships brought by the aftermaths of the massive and absurd massacre that led the world to war again in 1939, leaving Europe in ruins. 

                                                                   Otto von Bismarck

 You would not understand the Russian Revolution, the Dictatorships of Mussolini of Hitler or the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) if you do not understand the social consequences of the expansion of big capitalism and the rising of “the Social question”. This is why a large part of the text of Teaching Guide 6 (pages 127-139) are dedicated  to this crucial aspect, including the “democratic solution” to the problem unexpectedly  invented by US President F.D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, that would lead to the Welfare State Model.  Something especially important considering the resurgence of inequalities worldwide, as a result of the Neoliberal policies started by the Western States in the 1980’s decade. In our today’s topic for discussion we will analyze if we are assisting today to a resurgence of the social question because of the overwhelming growing of inequality all over the Planet. 

F.D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)

  Please read carefully the chain of events triggered by the Russian revolution, that finally led to World War 2 (1939-1945) and to the Cold War (1948-1989). And consider if right now we are facing a resurgence of a New Cold war in which Western countries are increasingly facing Russia and China making the world really unstable. 

The most important idea you have to retain of Teaching Guide 6 is how the Nation-State model brought to the destruction of Europe in only three decades.

 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 124 to 161), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 154-155) all 21 dates included are crucial.  

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Are we facing a new “Social Question” today worldwide? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think about why the Liberal regimes of European Nation-States provoked the social question: the technological revolution, the demographic expansion, the growth of cities, and the changes in the European Social structure.  

2. Look at the emergence of the Socialist approach in its different stages: Romantic, Scientific, Revolutionary, Social democratic.

3. Analyze how conservatives (right wing) faced the Social question, starting with Bismarck’s Sozialpolitik, following with the reaction of the European oligarchies to the Soviet Revolution, and ending with the American New Deal, and its impact in Europe. 

4. Consider the essence of the Welfare State model. Why it appeared, its strengths and weaknesses. 

5. Figure out how could we face the problem that represents the rise of a huge mass of a class useless people –that is people who do not have a job, because the system does not need them- in the 21st century, resulting from the technological explosion and globalization.   

   

THE APOGEE OF EUROPEAN NATION-STATES

                                                                                 The Vienna Congress (1815)

19th century is the European century. In the first half the principle of the Nation-State through the Laissez-faire (liberal) regime extends all over Europe despite the resistance of the Absolutists sovereigns reunited in the Congress of Vienna and signatories of the Holy Alliance, and Metternich policy of counterrevolutionary military intervention.

                                                          Klemmens von Metternich (1773-1859)

 It is true that thanks to Metternich European sovereigns define a common policy to fight revolutions as the one started by Riego in Spain in 1820, that was followed by movements as the Decembrist Revolt in Russia. But the UK walks away from the Holy Alliance when the British decide to back the rebellion in Spanish America, and France with the 1830 revolution that brings the creation of the Belgian State and the crucial electoral reform of Lord Grey in 1832 that transform the nature of the English Parliamentary system.   

                                The 1830 French Revolution by Eugène Delacroix

The whole order established in the Congress of Vienna crumbles with the wave of revolutions of 1848 that brings liberal nationalism to Italy, Austria and Prussia. 

                                                                        The 1848 Revolution in Berlin

 The result is the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 and the German unification promoted by Bismarck, that thanks to the Prussian overwhelming victory over Napoleon III proclaim William I of Prussia as Kaiser of the Second Reich. Though the new German Empire, the North German Confederation headed by Prussia, is not a Parliamentary Regime as the Government is designated by the Kaiser and not by the Reichstag.

                                         Proclamation of the Second Reich in Versailles (January 18, 1871)

 It will be so until the foundation of the Weimar Republic in 1919. Imperial Russia would be the last bastion of autocracy, until the 1905 Revolution, provoked by the humiliating defeat of Tsarist Russia by Imperial Japan. Russia will have a sort of Liberal regime from 1906 to 1917.  

In the course of the 19th century all of European States have a constitution, a set of fundamental rights and a national narrative that consolidate the independence of every European State. The result of this rising nationalism is the amazing colonial expansion of these wealthy and powerful European Nation-States with the result of a growing tension that leads to the Armed Peace period and, finally to World War I.  

The most important idea you have to retain of Teaching Guide 5 is that a Europe of powerful states leads to war. An important lesson that proud European States will not learn until the end of World War II. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 80 to 118), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 119-121) the crucial dates are the following: 

1815, 1820-1823, 1830, 1832, 1848, 14 March 1861, 1862-1890 (Bismarck), 1868, 1870, 1871, 1904, 1905, 1906. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Are the principles of the revolutionary liberalism still valid in our Western Democracies ? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think that the Liberal regime establishes severe limits to the government, through the Constitution, the Declaration of Fundamental Rights and the Parliamentary regime. Think of how everyone of these limits work. 

2. Look for the Concept of the “Rule of Law” (“Estado de derecho” in Spanish)

3. Do you think that the rule of law is really respected by Western governments? Provide some concrete examples. 

4. Do you think that there are questions that justify governmental authoritarianism?

5. “  Please explain what Churchill meant when he said that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.”

   

                            Winston Churchill in 1941 by Yousuf Karsh

THE BIRTH OF THE NATION-STATE

"La Fête de la Fédération" (14 July 1790)

 The decadence of the Universal model was the direct consequence of the strengthening of the State, thanks to the nationalist narrative. We have already seen in Teaching guide 2 that during once kings turned into monarchs they could organize better their Realms creating administrative bodies that enabled them to collect taxes for paying the maintain a permanent army. They could impose a protectionist economic policy aiming at augmenting the wealth of the state by the way of increasing as much as possible the reserves of gold and silver. Something that could be reached by the way of establishing a favorable balance of trade, exporting more than importing and monopolizing as many trades as possible.  This economic policy was called “mercantilism”

Every monarch started competing with other monarchs in order to accumulate wealth and therefore power.  Part of the wealth was of course the result of having as many territories as possible and as many subjects that could pay taxes and join their armies. For this the kings developed step by step a “proto-national feeling.” 

Starting may be with Jeanne d’Arc (1412-1431) that helped his king Charles VII to get rid of the English soldiers that occupied a substantial part of French soil during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). Napoleon considered her the symbol of France. Beatified in 1909 ans canonized in 1920, Saint Joan of Arc became one of the patrons of France. 

Royal states during the absolutist period did not disdain to foment patriotic sentiments amongst their subjects during political and military conflicts. We cannot speak of proto-nationalism, as in Tudor England, Bourbon France and Habsburg Spain these feeling did not emanate from a loyal people who felt invested in, and identified with, their land and its institutions. In fact, according to Anderson (Lineages of Absolutist State, London: Verso, 2013) these “national passions” under absolutism, though they may have appeared to be significant, were in reality highly contingent and volatile, as power and political legitimacy were of a dynastic nature, constantly vulnerable to manipulation by grandees and sovereigns. (see pages 44 and 45 of your Materials).

Signing the Peace of Westphalia

But regardless of the abovementioned debate, it is quite clear that after the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the idea of a universal Christian Empire was replaced by an international order based on the struggle between different secular “national monarchies” that would struggle to impose their hegemony through successive wars during the next three centuries.   

To fight a war required money. A soldier is someone who received his pay. It comes from the latin word “soldatus” that is the one who receive solidus, a golden coin in the Latter Roman Empire. In Spanish salary is still designated as “SUELDO”. For a very long time armies were made of “mercenaries”. 

The Continental Congress 4 of July 1776

This changed in America for the first time when colons rebelled against the British Crown and declared their independence on July 4, 1776, starting a Revolutionary War of 7 years (until 1783). Patriotism was at the stake in George Washington’s Camp. British soldiers fought essentially for money, but American soldiers fought to have a country of their own. Of course not all of the Americans were for rebellion. Some wanted to keep on being British subjects: they were called Loyalists. If you want to really feel what was it like I strongly recommend the US TV Serie “Turn. Washington Spies” (2014) and of course the classic Mel Gibson’s Movie The Patriot (2000). You will enjoy them very much. 

Fighting for your own country and not for your king was a powerful narrative that lead you to be willing to die by patriotism. That was very clear under another Revolution: the French one. The French Revolution was such a mess that it may have disappeared if the Revolutionary Constituant Assembly had not had the brilliant idea of declaring the war to the kings of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria on the 20 of April 1792. Prior to this on July 14, 1790 delegations from all over France met in Paris in the Champ de .

 The conflict of the newborn United States of America with the UK between 1776 and 1783, and the conflict of Revolutionary France against Absolutist European kings of the Ancien Regime created a new type of State. The Nation-State in which sovereignty was not vested on the Monarch, but on the People, considered as Nation, that is a Political Body that govern themselves through the representatives elected (Representative democracy).

The crucial point is that “nationalism” became a very powerful narrative that consolidated the state and dissolved any rest of “universalism”. The Law for instance became “national” and the result was “codification”. Every State created its own ordered set of national laws. Including the Law that declared who was “national” of the state. 

In this Teaching Guide 4 we will see the origins of the “Nation State” idea through the American and French Revolution. And in the next Teaching Guide 5 we will see the apogee of the Nation-States during the period starting with Napoleon and leading to the Era of great colonialism that ended for European States with the holocaust of World War I. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 54 to 78), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 74 to 75) the crucial dates are the following: 

a) For the American Revolution: 1607, 1620, 1754-1763, 1773, 17775, 1776, 1777, 1783 and 1787

b) For the French Revolution: the periods of Constituant Assembly (June 1789 to September 1791); the Legislative Assembly (October 1791 to August 1792); the Convention (September 1792 to October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795 to November 1799). 

Crucial dates are : 1789 (17 June, 20 June, 27 June, 14 July), 1790 (July 14),  1792 (April 20; 10 August, 20 and 22 September); 1793 (21 January); 1794 (January until July: Robespierre). 1799, 9 November. 

 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: How important is your country for you? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Are you proud of being Spanish? 

2. Do you think that Spain is an arbitrary invention that does not make sense today?

3. Do you think that Catalonians and Basques should be independent Nation-States? Give reasons for and against. 

4. Do you feel more Spanish or more European?

5. What moves you more: your local soccer team or the Spanish National team?