Greater Greece and Greater Britain; and, George Washington, the Expander of England.: Two Lectures with an AppendixFreeman, Edward A. (Edward Augustus)
History
Greater Greece and Greater Britain; and, George Washington, the Expander of England.: Two Lectures with an Appendix
Freeman, Edward A. (Edward Augustus)
Great Britain -- Colonies; Imperial federation; Washington, George, 1732-1799
dearly bought, if it carried with it the perfect independence of the
United States of Australia, and a greater chance than we now have of
keeping the lasting good will of the United States of America?
FOOTNOTES:
[2] There are one or two other rather curious uses of the word
“imperial” with regard to weights and measures, which it cannot be
supposed had any reference to India or the colonies.
[3] See an article by Mr. Forster in the Nineteenth Century for
February, 1885, from which I have made some extracts.
[4] This is historically true of the Achaian cities, of the Swiss
cantons (in 1848), and of the original American States. All these
really did cede certain powers and keep others. Of the American
States admitted since the acceptance of the Federal Constitution by
all the original States, it is not historically true, but it is true
by a legal fiction. Massachusetts really ceded certain powers to the
Union. Missouri never did, as a historical fact; but it did so by a
legal fiction when it was admitted to the same rights and the same
obligations as Massachusetts.
[5] The second union of Greek cities under the headship of Athens comes
nearest to such a change; but it is not a real precedent. The cities
which formed the second Athenian alliance had once been subjects of
Athens; but, when the second alliance was formed, they were subjects of
Athens no longer; they entered the union as independent states. And the
union was not really a federation, but only a close alliance. Moreover,
before very long, Athens was at war with her own allies.
[6] When I wrote this a year ago, I did not foresee that the question
of Home Rule would become an immediately practical one before the
question of Imperial Federation.
[7] I am speaking here of political position, not of political power,
still less of extent of territory or population. Bern is small, New
York is great; but the political position of the two is the same; each
is the greatest member of an equal confederation. And that political
position is higher than that of any British colony, even though the
Legislature of the colony may actually have, as in some cases it has,
greater powers than the Legislature of the American State or Swiss
canton. For the greater powers of the colony are mere grants from a
higher authority; they are bestowed by royal charter or by Act of
Parliament. But the smaller powers of the American State or Swiss
canton are the inherent powers of an independent state. They are those
powers which an independent state kept to itself and did not cede to
the federal authority.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account