Charles Tilly On The Relationship Between Cities And European States

Part B: Discuss the development of a national government in the United States, from the Albany Plan to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

N.p., 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (-- removed HTML --) . Argument 3: The government formed did not look after each state equally by looking at their political, social and economic differences that had made them each successful in their own way.

This paper is about how The United States moved from it’s inept first attempt at self government progressing, to the Constitution, which took care of many issues prevalent in the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionary concepts exemplified in the constitution propelled The United States onto the world stage. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, two essays and a book will be consulted concerning what people thought about the Constitution when it was first implemented and how it is perceived today. In addition, a brief history of early American government and how the Constitution came to be will be discussed. Furthermore the resulting Constitution and how it improved upon the Articles of Confederation will be discussed.

In this essay I will talk about how some governments and countries were stabilized and centralized.

Constitutional federalism guaranteed that the new national government could not usurp all governing powers. Initially, the existence of the state militias and the lack of a standing national army provided the most convincing check on such a tendency. For Hamilton, however, the long-term security of federalism lay in the competition of the two levels of government for the affections of the people. The states had the distinct advantage here, due to familiarity and local bias. The national government had the greater burden of convincing the people of its value. Ultimately, he believed it could win broad political support and even superiority, first through successful stimulation of economic development and second through more effective organization and administration (Syrett & Cooke, 1969-1979, Vol. V, p.

“If the region were not already possessed by a rival, then a state might acquire it in one of three ways, by persuading the indigenous inhabitants to submit themselves to its overlordship; by purchasing from those inhabitants the right to settle part or parts of it; by unilateral possession, on the basis of first discovery and effective occupation (M. Borch 2001)”.

The Articles of Confederation, a written agreement that ensured each state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence, led America to victory over the British centralized government. During the late eighteenth century, the empowered government terrified the Americans, hence the thirteen colonies decided to spread governance powers equally to all functional states. The states had absolute dominance over the Congress due to the Articles of Confederation. While the localized power of states seemed to be promising, the system posed great threat to the major components of a democratic government, which are coercion, revenue, and legitimacy (Lecture 1 - The Roots of Government). The system of localized power did not ensure legitimacy, which referred to people’s recognition of national government. Congress’s lack of power to control each state’s actions caused great chaos. Eventually, national government’s lack of power and inability to unify the states exposed multiple flaws in the Articles of Confederation; consequently, a new supreme law, the Constitution was established by the founding fathers. The new supreme law successfully altered the imbalanced system into a novel democratic government.

Because Greek city-states were largely independent of each other, multiple forms of power were able to

To begin with, it is important to understand the city states did not outline the division of politics, society, religion, and economy as clearly as modern day western societies do or even

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

Charles Tilly (1929-2008) is a former sociologist and political scientist who introduced the idea of state-making through state-makers in global politics. Charles Tilly argued that state-making is the process by which state-makers eliminate other hostile or adverse powerful men within a given territory. State-makers are the power holders in society such as kings or landowners . In “Bringing the State Back” (Tilly, Charles. 172) Tilly argues that states are formed through a capricious and unintentional process by which state-makers enforce war in the pursuit of territory, human population and scarce resources. Tilly says that state-makers did not take part in the pivotal and costly tasks of war-making, extraction and capital accumulation with a mind set of ultimately forming a state. Rather, Tilly argued that the pursuit of resources for war-making, capital accumulation and extraction was required to gain territory, money and human population. Tilly describes capital accumulation as the process of investing money into warfare in return for future profits or benefits. Lastly, Tilly defines extraction as acquiring means such as population, money or weaponry to carry out the initial war-making process. Modern day rebel militant forces such as ISIS and the Taliban support Tilly’s explanation of state-making, however ISIS challenges the aspect of unintentional state-making, as it ultimately envisages the emergence of a state once the war-making is over.

Throughout history, the evolution of communities and societies has been influenced by the local and global economy. Large cities emerged from vibrant business activity and flow of products and services. For the most part

Confederacies exist as a group of autonomous individual states, regions, or member components who form a national body, or centralized government, to represent their independent interests at a more regional and international level. The existence of the national government is derived from the consent of each governed autonomous state or region. The entities that submit to this central ruling authority are able to withdraw from the compact that binds them together. The national authority created is only bestowed with the powers, authority, and privileges which the independent components in the confederacy allow. If any member component feels its interests are no longer being served or the compact has interfered with its autonomy, then that entity of the confederacy can sever its ties with the national body. This can occur because the state, region, or member component has the supreme ultimate authority over its own affairs. As further examination and analysis will demonstrate there is no inherent authority invested into the national government as is the case of a federalist system.

Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests. Territorial sovereignty refers specifically to the power of the state ‘the territorial limits within which state authority may be exercised on an exclusive basis.’ This essay will explore the concept and development of sovereignty within the system of states. Firstly, it will identify the state system before the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ in 1648, then it will compare the ever changing forms of sovereignty since, and the reasons for change, which have established the modern form of sovereignty which exists today.

Eventually a reorganization of the political order developed locally with feudalism. It was a cheap, local and efficient from of government. It didn't offer much more than order and