There are probably better subreddits to post this to but I'll try my best to answer anyway. The title is bound to the history of the founding of the United States. I'm going to try and do my best to give a summary that also provides why the name was chosen and why it is still used.

This would go back to the founding of the country in 1776. At the time what would be the United States was 13 colonies under British rule. Due to unfair treatment and not having any representation in the government the colonists made demands which were cast aside by the British Parliament. The colonies eventually formed militias and bound together and tension rose to the point where war was declared. The colonies joined together to become the United States.

When the American colonies won their war for independence, despite the war always being referred to as the American Revolution, they made the Articles of Confederation. Under this each state was pretty much it's own nation. Each one used it's own currency, had it's own laws, and didn't need to respect each-others documents. Delegates were sent to try and fix the Articles of Confederation so that the United States wouldn't fall apart into a group of micro-nations. They through out the Articles of Confederation and made the United Sates Constitution, which was highly influenced by the British Manga Carta. Under this the states were now given a central power structure, our federal government, had to respect each-others documentations like ownership and licenses, and use a universal currency across the nation. The United States Constitution did other things but in short it gave the federal government enough power to act well giving states enough power to have a reason to exist.

To this day we remain the United States because each state does not have the power and ability to truly support itself. The Federal Government could exist without states but as each region differs having variation of laws across regions helps keeps things a bit easier to understand. Of course in modern times our government is trying everything it can to confuse people and make it harder for our system to work as it is meant to. However that is why we are the United States. Basic necessity for each-other and there would be massive push-back for one to get rid of the other.

I hope that this segment of the United States' history helps you understand why it is called the "United States". If you got further question ask me and I'll do my best.

Edit: added some more content.

Thank you for that. I am not all that clued up on American history and the history of its founding, so that summary was quite well put.

I suppose the reason I posted this question in this sub as opposed to something more relevant, like a history sub, is because I often wonder if there is a more sinister reason as to why this country is governed this way. Because in a sense, if you look at the changing landscape of drug policy (legalisation of cannabis in Washington and Colorado, specifically) it almost seems like the federal government impedes the ability of individual states to alter/ update their own social policies based on factors that are only relevant to those specific states.

To sum it up, it makes me wonder whether the way the whole thing operates, as a collection of states rather than independent state nations, does more harm than good when it comes to the way policy is updated (or abolished) based on the needs of citizens living in a specific state or region.

EDIT: In response to your edit, specifically the second last paragraph. As far as industry and production is concerned, can each state product its own basic food? I understand that climate differences play a big role in which state is a producer of what, etc., but are there states that cannot support agriculture on a scale large enough to support its own populace?

Well in more recent times lobby groups and other similar organizations have been gaining influence like crazy. These are pretty much people with lots of money that petition the government, and they have money so they can give incentive for cooperating and can use that money to destroy the official's credibility if they refuse. The US Constitution is the longest lasting goverment but its adaptability has lead to exploitation and now we have all these crazy things happening that you see about here. The Constitution is a great form of goverment and I am patriotic to my nation but that does not mean I will blindly follow has its leaders destroy what its founding stood for. The problem is purely human and that the inevitable part of our nature. Back then you didn't have too much bad stuff happening behind the curtain but as the system grew older and adapted it became more exploitable, and here we are today with human right denial, a police force that is starting to looks like an army, and the biggest protest we had in the last decade with millions of supporters was a complete failure. America is in dark times and I hope they will pass soon so I can be proud in this country again.

"America is in dark times and I hope they will pass soon so I can be proud in this country again."

You and me both brother.

You paint quite a grim picture, but indeed, I am aware of most of these things because of the company I keep and the news sources I trust.

And I can totally respect American patriots that are proud of what the country was founded upon, because they are good, honest principles. It's just a shame that most people that call themselves patriots nowadays (American or otherwise) are just war-mongering scumbags that misuse the word as an excuse to support their country's terrible, terrible decisions.

The near police state level of law enforcement in America does scare the shit out of me, though. Just makes me wonder what exactly they are getting ready to curb, if you know what I mean.

The whole concept of lobbying agendas to Congress also seems fucking crazy to me. Corporations should have absolutely no business in influencing government policy.

The adaptability of the Constitution is also an interesting point, I recently had a discussion with a friend about that. I suppose it's inevitable that laws get updated, but it's like you said, people find ways to game the rules and it takes a lot more than common sense (or so it would seem) for holes to be plugged.

To address the scaryness of some of what is going on. EVERYONE is upset. Even if they don't frequent alt media, or pay much attention, we are getting slapped in the face and everyone feels it. Even if they are not clear on why or how they are getting slapped. No party is off the hook this time and there is no where to run/vote.

Because of this, whatever game they think they are playing right now...will probably bite them in the ass. You don't corner and try to beat 300 Million proud, hungry, and angry dogs. (to be vulgar ;) )

It may be over confident, but I think in the next 10-20 years, we could very well see some very bad men go to jail for a very long time.

My summary: They goofed up and got too cocksure. Everyone is noticing. They are scared of something now. Is it us? It should be.

[deleted]

Having a standard legal format for addressing corruption issues is the BIGGEST benefit of any sort of functional democracy IMHO.

But functional governments are usually very SLOW governments. This is good...if frustrating.

SA and the US have VERY interesting Corportate histories. If accountability started there...you would see it in office in short order I think.

(Edit: I actually knew what a kraal was. Go me. lol. And yeah that is retarded and at least it is plain to see and poke pitchforks at. I think with people being single minded or lazy with politics in part is...well, the Pitchfork gets heavy after a while. People need a push. Motivation.)

[deleted]

Social issues always hurt. :( The hurt is so big sometimes that people become self destructive and make everything worse. That is what happened in the US to a lesser degree.

For Africas sake (since you are right, the opportunity was lost...at least temporarily) at this point in time, I WISH you guys were really closed off for now. Worry not. The Corporations are coming. France is already there, robbing the people. More are on the way.

Honestly, Africa has my deepest condolences. For what ever will probably happen in the future. Some of us have at least a clue, if not all the details. We wish you the very best. They are coming. Maybe it will be a good thing...but I'm not so optomistic.

hugs

Thanks, brobeans... =')

By closed off to outside help, I mean that people are scared of outside interference because they don't trust it. They'd rather trust their own corrupt government that doesn't give a shit about them.

But yes, THEY are coming. The next 20 years are going to change everything, everywhere I think. People older than me always recall a time when they felt exactly the same about what was happening, and nothing "big" ever came about. But honestly, all this unrest, all this death, the Snowden scandal... The public are beginning to understand that the "freedom" they have is a very limited form of freedom. They feel free because they can choose which shop to give their money to, failing to see how enslaved they are by having to pay for these things in the first place. That might be a generalisation aimed at capitalism, but in a sense, I think capitalism is the root of this problem.

Not everything needs to have a fucking price tag. And especially not human beings. MEH. -_-

I agree with much of what you say. However, capitalisim that is NOT in bed with government is imo the bestest! Everyone can work and start businesses without interference and do for themselves. Wild West for the win...too bad it got ruined.

Getting that non-oligargy or non-facist system to stay "non" is hard. VERY hard.

The alternative is to have no government, or turn all business over to government. I'd take the former far before the latter, but keep hoping for a small gov't that is not in bed with business.

Futile maybe, but still.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's just a shame that it all goes hand in hand, and that people that operate governments see themselves as corporations in a sense, as opposed to public service, which it fucking is.

Yep. It is all fucked up. :(

I agree with much of this. The benefits of a union are high, as I described above. The early days of states issuing thier own currency were silly. However, I DON'T think it could not be done at all. I think states as independant nations could work in theory. It is just not Likely for the reasons you state.

Yeah they could work but it would cost them so much to move from a part of a union to independent the costs would far outweigh the benefits.

True.

The US is united under a tyranny of the wealthy elite, who control us and tell us what to buy, what to eat and drink, what to say, and what to think.

Isn't that pretty much every country in the world, though?

You outlined the Unity yourself. The agreement that 50 independant states, would agree to abide by constitutional federal law. That is it.

But you go on to discuss regional differences. Every large nation has regional differences. You could look at each state like a country of the EU I guess, kind of the same...but very different. lol. Primarily in that the EU is composed only recently of nations with 100's or 1000's of years of independant Nationhood. The closest the US gets to something like that is what was once the Western Territories, Alaska and Hawaii. And that is short time-wise.

Anyway, the EU has regional preferences too. I mean compare Greece to Germany.

I Do want to also point out that we KINDA have nations within the nation who are not a part of the nation, in the sense that they are not bound by the federal and state law the way most others are, but ARE "protected" by it. The native peoples tribes are like this, and the Amish and a few other religous groups. I just feel like that deserves a mention. Though it is not terribly relevant to the broad subject.

The benefit to every citizen is free travel between states. Reasonable interstate commerce. No state v state warring. A single currency for trade. All are pointedly protected by the Constitution. Stuff like that.

The benefit to the states is a lower legal burden to a small degree, and better interstate trade, and tax money that comes in, like from federal collection that is dispersed to the states for education. The states collect thier own for edu also. Shared cost. though once upon a time ONLY states could levy most taxes. The Fed used to be limited to international trade tarrifs and the like. But in todays context...Stuff like that. I digress. The benefit to the state is similar to the benefit to the individual. The Constitution protects the States as an institution as well.

Part of the protection and secssion issue is in fact determined by the State Constitutions (they each have one and it is very similar to the US constitution generally) After the Civil War secession was deemed unconstitutional, though for a LONG time (even today once in a while) States and Parties argue for it. A SCOTUS ruling can be overturned, but it is not likely to happen. Secession of land and people from STATES has been done/discussed/supported. Also not likely to be sucessful. BUT...it COULD be done, theoretically. See this for more detail on US secession discussion, and the legal findings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_rulings

Historically there were those, a good many too, that Wanted each state to be more Nation like. When talking about the US Constitution the Federalist Papers are mentioned a lot. Good work those. nods What does NOT get mentioned often is the Anti-Federalist Papers. They were pretty good works as well. :) In reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers in order-ish you can get a blow by blow of exactly how that all worked out.

But I think that we get the same impression that you have. The one the media sells. That Cali is liberal sunshine and nothing else, and that Iowa is nothing but corn and conservatives. It's not the case really, it is only that some won the Loudness Game in some places.

Cali has conservatives. Iowa has Liberals...plus the multitude of ways of expressing "liberal" and "conservative" It boggles the mind. I am mid-nation, and I consider myself, and am liberal on a number of things and conservative on others.

It gets confusing. So you see only the most simplified and loudest layer represented publically.

The MEDIA...the media never explains anything and gets blurbs from the dumbest people they can find.

(Edit: More content)

Thank you, that was quite informative.

I suppose you are quite right, regional differences are quite commonplace in every country. My fascination with America in this sense is that the sheer land mass is so huge when compared to most countries in the world (safe for maybe Russia, which is also massive).

And yes, sadly most of my knowledge comes from the media. Whatever geographical/ political knowledge I have I try to get from Wikipedia or some sort of "neutral" body of information, so as to avoid bias in the way the information is laid out.

But benefits aside, has there ever been an attempt at (or at the very least some kind of general public drive towards) seceding by any state? A friend of mine from Canada told me that Quebec once tried to secede and become its own independent country with its own currency and all that kind of stuff, but the Canadian government basically ignored the shit out of them so nothing ever came of it. Has there ever been something like that in the US?

The whole political landscape of America leaves the impression that when there is a Conservative administration, all the Liberals are constantly butthurt about how they are doing it, and vice versa when the country is under a Liberal administration. Just makes me wonder why there hasn't been a split based on that, if nothing else.

EDIT: In response your edit about the Native Americans. This is also one of the things I find interesting, because from what I've read, it seems like reservations are basically very much restricted to anyone outside of the tribe. Even law enforcement can have difficulty trying to get things done.

About the reservations. Yep. They rule themselves. Totally. Anything that happens on Reservation land is reservation business, UNLESS someone not from the reservation is murdered by someone from the reservation, or if some massive crime is done by a reservation person OFF of reservation property.

They take little to no federal money. They are independant nationstates in a functional way.

I FULLY support that. :)

That's very interesting. Sort of like the Wild West out there... =P

Sort of. I'm not all up on Rez law or anything, but they also have courts and stuff. They have internal law. But they naturally protect thier citizens first, ahead of the wishes of a federal government that abused them so badly for so long. The feds know this and rarely make arbitrary solicitations of them. It HAS to be a big and provable deal.

If I were a native resident, I would be the same. Many of them assisted the US and the french and suffered for it. Then they fought back and suffered more. Some never liked us though...and I still cannot find fault with that. lol We were assHOLES. Some of them were too, but then again we WERE invading. In fact I would support turning over a bit more federal land either totally, or jointly, in rez fish/huntable preserves.

[deleted]

Oh no. What the Native people have is not anything like Affirmitive Action. They are independant nations of peoples and law.

I just think personally, that our government could give them some land that isn't in a goddamn desert or dry shrubland, because that is what they have now in the lower 48 mostly, and we have parks to spare. It wouldn't be much, but at least they could run cattle on it or something.

Not take private land to give to them, but land that is already federally held. And a joint proposition could be made too. Something tangible, useful and lasting to make up better for the previous theft and lies.

The poverty levels are awful, and it is only because we broke treaty after treaty. That is, we broke the legal agreements. Give some arable or grazing quality land back and they can decide what to do with it to help themselves.

Affirmitive Action forces things on individuals and companies. I see that as totally different. It hamstrings progress honestly, and strikes me as a half-hearted "here, now shut up" kind of move.

I would replace Affirmitive Action with deregulating a WHOLE lot of things so that people could start and maintain businesses. That would help everyone. Also stop throwing people (mostly minority males) in jail for victimless crimes. That would be something "nice" the gov't could do to make up for stuff. But NOPE. Because??? (no one will say it out loud...lol)

Yes I agree. When you cater to ANY lowest common denominator you remove the impetus to do better, and that has nothing to do with race. Might have everything to do with not actually being concerned with the overall well being of a population though.

We have a issue in our schools similar to your work situation. Called No Child Left Behind, where struggling kids or those with behaviour or learning problems are put into normal class rooms with teachers who are not trained in special ed. Then the test requirements have to be dropped. Everyone gets a lower quality education and less attention. But it is FAIR. headdesk

There are GREAT ways to help. The ones you describe are NOT IT. lol

Ah, I see. Well in the case of the Native Americans, I think it makes total sense considering how it was all theirs to begin with. So yes, I see your point about giving them fertile land they could do something useful with instead of just building casinos to generate revenue.

Yes, I completely agree. If anything, I think I'd actually be insulted if I was told I can get into university with less effort just because of my skin colour. It's fucking demeaning.

But that's the thing I don't get. Apartheid ended, you have your rights, you have all of your rights. Now use them. The balance is restored, so to speak. Trying anything more is going to skew it in the other direction.

And yes, you are right. Regulation does little more than just make it stupidly hard for people to do these simple things. Meanwhile, a criminal enterprise operating under the guise of a business will have the money to pay off anyone that checks up on said regulations anyway, so to say that regulation actually prevents corruption is such a lie.

No Child Left Behind is such an odd concept for me. Surely it's also going to be traumatic for the child himself, to be in an environment that does not care for his/ hers special needs and needing a different approach to being taught? Another thing that PISSES me off is when people say that it's better that way, because they the kid will have a "normal" childhood. But what people forget is that kids are assholes. And kids pick on each other and call each other names and make life miserable for each other. Kids don't KNOW what special needs are, not in the way an adult will know once they have been educated about it. So to expect a "normal" environment is total bullshit because kids will not have the same understanding towards the situation as adults do. Shit, you still get adults today that think people with Down's are something worth laughing about. So yeah... Kinda silly.

But coming back to the pass rates and stuff, you're right, it just produces an under-educated population across the board, and that leads to dumb people roaming our streets. But I suppose that's the point... Smart people ask questions, not-so-smart people look at booties twerking on TV and think their government takes very good care of them because that's just how it SHOULD be... -_-

EDIT: more content.

"I think I'd actually be insulted if I was told I can get into university with less effort just because of my skin colour. It's fucking demeaning."

This. A million times this.

It's so true, though. It's about self-respect and about pride. Surely one should be PROUD of finally breaking through oppressive rule and having the power to be free? Surely just that fact would be enough to make you work as hard as possible towards a good education and a bright future because, now you CAN have a bright future, you CAN take part in these things instead of being looked down upon.

Around here it's a very common tune. People would rather whine about how shitty they had it back in the day instead of seizing the opportunities they have TODAY. And the thing is, it's not even them that had it bad, it was their parents, and their parents' parents. I'm talking about people my age (early 20s) that grew up in this country when all of that crap was over and done with. They have the BALLS to whine about this shit when it has not affected their lives or progress through school in the slightest. No teacher would treat you differently just because of your skin colour. Smart is smart, stupid is stupid. Just like it should be.

I'm not a racist, far from it actually. What I despise is people who are just outright lazy and will use any excuse instead of getting off their ass and actually working for what they want. Because, while the surroundings may now be grey concrete and there is no immediate threat to our day to day survival, the world is still a fucking jungle. And you have to go out there and get what you want, you have to be good, the best even. People who just sit around and wait for things to fall into their lap only have themselves to blame when they wake up in 10 years and things are all the fucking same.

You cannot hope to achieve an outcome if you don't take action to start. Cause and effect.

EDIT: spellings.

Oh yeah. Many times. Sometimes as a form of protest. Sometimes seriously. I edited more...meep It's in there.

Texas has been the historically biggest proponent for secession. This is because of how the state of Texas came about. And because Texas is fucking HUGE. Look at the history of the texas region/mexico and southwest/mexico/US relations from early on. There was much sqabbleing and texas had little Federal aid in dealing with Mexico. So they quickly felt that the Federal gov't was useless and they didn't need them. Maybe rightfully.

That proud idea still sticks in peoples hearts and minds.

Edit: The reason for no liberal/conservative split is that, like I said, there may be a majority...but not ENOUGH of a majority to gain legal ground. That is a function of a Democratic Republic vs a Simple Democracy. Which is also why you see people Correcting others with "Republic" when they call the US a "Democracy" Furthermore...pretty much everyone regardless of political preference, really really LIKES the Bill of Rights, and no one really wants to give that up. Another factor is the now very powerful State dependance on Federal money.

That's very interesting. And yeah, looking at the geography of Texas and its surroundings, it makes sense to me that they would want to be independent in order to deal with their specific problems.

I definitely see your point regarding the Bill of Rights.

I suppose, in a very generalised sense, America comes across as a country whose citizens are not that happy with each other, if you know what I mean. There is so much disagreement on so many issues, it just makes one wonder whether it is because there are too many variables, as in, there are too many people of all sorts of ideologies, creeds and outlooks on life trying to fit under the same roof.

But then it's like you said, a lot of these things are overlooked because of the top-level benefits (the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. etc.).

"America comes across as a country whose citizens are not that happy with each other"

I understand exactly why it is like that. Because it is. We won't ever get along, and I don't feel like that is a very good goal. Homogeny is DANGEROUS. More dangerous than not getting along. :) But we DO agree on some powerful fundementals. And despite what MSM, a few SMALL minority groupings, some of the internet says, we tend to respect those fundementals ABOVE personal differences, and we have a courts system to make sure it stays represented as such.

I might think that certain people are idiots, or even dangerous in one way or another to MY values and knowledge, but I would NEVER, EVER demand that they be outed, marginalized, silenced or jailed for ideas or the expression of ideas. And that is the key.

Splitting states for that sort of reason would come with driving out the people that "caused" the split. Doing that would go against the Fundemental principles.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

I do see your point, a populace that is not independent enough, as individuals, to be vocal about their differences can be a huge danger. One of the reasons I have hope in America to turn the tide when it comes to corruption in the world is that freedom of speech is one of those top-level guarantees, if you follow.

When you look at a place like China, with its censorship of everything and state-controlled everything, they do not have a choice in being brainwashed from birth to think that they are the shit and everyone who does not think the way they do is obviously some kind of depraved pervert. So I think it's good to have a country populated by individuals, not this homogenous population blob.

Oh and I could totally understand Quebec wanting to secede, from a historical perspective.

United as we are all fucked without lube by the same corrupt govt.

MY MAN! :D

Sorry for all the edits btw. I type as I think, then rethink. then type more. lol

That's quite alright, I do it myself all the time. =)

I agree with much of what you say. However, capitalisim that is NOT in bed with government is imo the bestest! Everyone can work and start businesses without interference and do for themselves. Wild West for the win...too bad it got ruined.

Getting that non-oligargy or non-facist system to stay "non" is hard. VERY hard.

The alternative is to have no government, or turn all business over to government. I'd take the former far before the latter, but keep hoping for a small gov't that is not in bed with business.

Futile maybe, but still.