To our friends and associates in the Atlantic community: We propose a
broader partnership that goes beyond our common fears, to recognize the depth
and sweep of our common political, economic, and cultural interests. We welcome
the recent heartening advances toward European unity. In every appropriate way,
we shall encourage their further growth within the broader framework of the
Atlantic community. -- Democratic Platform, July 12, 1960.
The vital need of our foreign policy is new political creativity, leading
and inspiring the formation, in all great regions of the free world, of
confederations, large enough and strong enough to meet modern problems and
challenges. We should promptly lead toward the formation of such confederations
in the North Atlantic community and in the Western hemisphere. -- Point Two
of the Nixon-Rockefeller Agreement, July 23, 1960.
The advance toward Atlantic Union reached a new high mark in 1960 when
Governor Nelson Rockefeller proposed a "North Atlantic Confederation"
in his address to the Binghamton (N.Y.) Rotary club on June 21.1 It rose still higher on July 12 when the Democrats
adopted a platform promising a "broader partnership" in "the
Atlantic Community" than NATO; the terms were broader and the volume of
support was greater. And then the advance reached still another peak on July 23
when Richard M. Nixon agreed to the Rockefeller proposal's Point Two in their
The climax came when the Democratic party, which has long been the one more
favorable to Atlantic Union, won the White House and both Houses of Congress.
This puts it in position to achieve, as far as the United States is concerned,
its promise of a "broader partnership" -- a term that does not exclude
Atlantic Union. Its responsibility to do this is the greater, since it cannot
fear opposition to this from Vice President Nixon -- and he ran so far ahead of
the Congressional candidates of his party that he nearly won the White House,
and surely won their respect. Nor need President Kennedy fear opposition from
Governor Rockefeller and his wing of the Republican party. To advance Atlantic
unification through Congress in these conditions would seem easy, compared to
some of the legislative feats that those master Congressional leaders, Vice
President Lyndon Johnson and Speaker Sam Rayburn, have already accomplished.
Their party being split as it is, the Republican candidate for President and
Governor Rockefeller deserve hearty applause for the refreshing courage they
have shown in proposing American leadership toward a North Atlantic
Confederation. In the American mind "confederation," is inevitably
associated with two highly significant experiences in American history: The
Articles of Confederation, ratified by the Thirteen States in 1783, which formed
a system more advanced than NATO, and the Confederate States of America, set up
by the South in 1861, which was practically a federation (as Chapter 8 will
Parties tend to steal each other's thunder (rather than lightning), and
Confederacy may understandably appeal more than Union to Southern Democrats.
Before we attach too much importance to this emotional factor, however, or to
the Nixon-Rockefeller use of the term, let us see what they mean by
confederation, and try to define the basic difference between confederation and
federation, both in principle and in American practice. Then let us assess the
results achieved by the American experiments with both systems, and draw all the
advantage we can from the lessons they have now for us, and all Atlantica -- and
"Albert Kolonji, a Baluba tribal leader," Russell Howe reported
from Elisabethville in the Washington Post on August 10, 1960, "called
for a confederal type of association in the Congo but seemed hazy about the
difference between federation and confederation. He said he was studying the
constitutions of Canada, the United States and Switzerland." His confusion
is all too widespread, and may even be increased by the examples he is studying.
All three are clear examples of federations, but the Swiss style theirs the "Helvetian
Confederacy." One may gain more clarity by studying the examples of both
systems which the history of the United States gives.
What Did Nixon and Rockefeller Mean?
First let us see what light the authors of the Nixon-Rockefeller agreement
throw on the meaning they attach to "confederation." The latter, while
leaving its substance vague, has given some significant hints. The most
far-reaching came when Curtin Winsor asked the Governor this question from the
floor, after his talk on "The Third Century" to the Philadelphia World
Affairs Council on April 22, 1960: "Do you think that it is possible that
these regional groupings (such as the Atlantic one) might get together into full
federation, at some time in the future?"
Governor Rockefeller answered: "I would think, myself, that that would
be, at some point, a very logical conclusion Certainly the experience of the
United States has been one of the most exciting and thrilling in the history of
the world. I know that some of us are concerned about states rights, and we do
our best to preserve them. Yet I think the federal system has proven its
tremendous strength and vitality. So I do not see why -- where regions exist,
with compatible objectives on the part of the people -- they should not
ultimately lead to confederation."
These words suffice to show that he has been thinking in terms of federal
union and does not shy at the thought of trying this solution "at some
point." The last two sentences indicate, moreover, that he then used "federal"
and "confederation" as synonymous, that when he spoke of ultimate "confederation"
in the last sentence, he had in mind "the federal system" he had cited
just before. How could the reverse be true -- how could he have meant
confederation in its usual sense when he spoke of "federal," since he
had said "the federal system has proven its tremendous strength and
vitality," and he had already called "the experience of the United
States ... most exciting"? Its trial of the Articles of Confederation
proved, as Governor Rockefeller knows the feebleness and futility of
On the other hand, one must remember that Governor Rockefeller was then
speaking "off the cuff." Although such speaking often throws more
light on a political leader's real thinking than do his formal statements, the
latter show much better what he considers to be "practical politics."
The little light he gives on the meaning he attaches to confederation
strongly indicates that he uses the term in its usual, non-federal sense. "The
work of moving toward confederation does not involve any super-states," he
explained at Binghamton. He made clearer that he did not mean federation when he
proposed in the same speech that the United States should enter not only a North
Atlantic but also a Western Hemisphere confederation. No state in the United
States -- or in any federal union -- can belong at the same time to another
federation, or enter into any confederation, league, alliance or treaty with any
foreign nation. Nor could any member do this in the Confederation originally set
up by the Thirteen States; the Confederation stipulated in Article VI: "No
state without the Consent of the united states (sic) in congress
assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into
any conference, agreement or alliance or treaty with any King, prince or state."
Apparently Governor Rockefeller uses confederation in a much looser sense than
did these Articles.
The only significant hints added by Governor Rockefeller's statement of July
23 to which Mr. Nixon agreed lay in the words, "vital," "strong,"
"promptly" -- "the vital need ... of confederations, large enough
and strong enough to meet modern problems and challenges. We should promptly
lead toward the formation of such confederations in the North Atlantic community
and in the Western Hemisphere."
Vice President Nixon, in his major campaign speech on foreign policy on
October 14, strongly pledged himself to push energetically, if elected, "toward
confederation" -- a term he twice repeated. "I would ask the NATO
governments to consider the feasibility of still closer ties," he said and
added a little later, in a way that covered both Atlantica and Latin America, "Such
regional action, moving toward confederation, is an imperative of our times."
He threw no light on what he meant by confederations, but the context
suggested that he shared the Rockefeller view as indicated above -- except that
he made no mention of either super-state or federal union.
From the available evidence, one may well conclude either that Vice
President Nixon and Governor Rockefeller have not thought out what they mean by
confederation (although there is good reason to believe they have long given
thought to both confederation and federation), or that they have made only an
opening move which will be spelled out later. Certainly one must conclude from
the public evidence now that the confederation they are talking about is a
system stronger in structure than the present NATO alliance -- but much weaker
than confederation in the historic American sense, though capable of "gradual
and evolutionary" growth (to quote from the Binghamton speech) into
something similar to the latter.
To clarify this vital question further, let us turn now to the dictionary,
see if its definitions can be bettered, and then pin them down more
realistically by comparing NATO with the Articles of Confederation, and the
latter with the federation which the Federal Constitution formed. Webster
distinguishes thus between confederation and federation:
Confederacy and confederation ... [apply] specifically to a union by
treaty or compact of independent states under a government to which powers are
delegated for dealing with common external relations; of the two, confederation,
perhaps, now implies the closer or more permanent association; as the Southern
Confederacy, the Articles of Confederation, the Germanic Confederation.
Federation in its broad sense includes any union under the terms of a
league or covenant; but specifically it designates a sovereign state, especially
one formed by the union of other states with a central general government and
several local governments; ... in the strictest sense the United States of
America constitutes a federation.
This indicates how dictionaries reflect the existing loose usage, and
contribute to the resulting confusion.
Study of the sense in which each of the various terms used today for
interstate groupings is generally meant shows that they readily fall into two
types. These two can be most simply and surely distinguished by the supreme or
sovereign unit of, by and for which the combination is formed. In last analysis
(see Union Now, Chapter VI) there are only two possible units: Man taken
as an individual person or sovereign, and mall taken as a collective
person or sovereign -- a manmade body politic taken as supreme instead of a
God-made, flesh-blood-and-soul human body ... John Bull instead of a John Q.
If the citizen is the sovereign, and power is divided between the
representatives he elects to his state and his interstate government, then the
combination is variously called a union, organic union, federal union, federal
republic, federation. I see no significant difference between these terms and
use them all interchangeably. As regards the outside world, each creates a "sovereign"
state in the sense of diplomacy. From the domestic standpoint, however, its "sovereignty"
is limited by that which the member states retain. Each is "sovereign"
in relation to the other as regards the powers assigned it by the constitution.
But the supreme sovereignty is equally divided among the citizens, who have
merely delegated a portion of their sovereignty to their representatives in
their state and interstate governments, and retain the power to re-delegate
If, to the contrary, some body politic -- tribe, city, kingdom, state,
nation -- is taken as the supreme sovereign unit, the resulting combination is
variously called a bloc, coalition, alliance, league, confederation,
confederacy, or -- when used in the modern international sense -- community.
None of these forms a new "sovereign" state or government in the usual
sense of the terms; however close some types may come to this, they remain in
last analysis an association of sovereign states. The different names indicate
different degrees of association, though one finds many exceptions to whatever
distinguishing rules one seeks to apply. I lump all these terms together when
seeking to distinguish the category to which they all belong from the other
basic category. But when using them in contra-distinction to others in their own
category, I would define them broadly and briefly as follows:
A bloc or coalition is the loosest and most temporary form;
neither usually involves a treaty, and the former indicates more common
interests than the latter, which implies association despite conflicting
interests. Both imply a number of members.
An alliance may have two or a number of members; it implies a treaty
and a longer period of duration, with some definite commitments, presumably
military, though possibly political.
League now implies a treaty associating a still larger number of
states for a longer time and for more purposes with some common institutions,
such as a secretariat and council, and a headquarters city.
Confederation and confederacy I use interchangeably to mean
a league that usually has fewer members but should have closer ties, stronger
commitments and more developed institutions -- the system in which member states
may (but rarely do) join together as closely as is possible while still
remaining the supreme sovereign units in it.
All the above terms involve a political association, though alliances may
and leagues and confederations do involve more than political and military
Community has entered the international field since World War II
from Western Europe where it is used with reference to associations which are
highly confederal in character except that they have thus far been non-political
and limited each to one field, as the European Economic Community or Common
Market of the Six Nations, and the projected European Defense Community. Though
the term began as part of the "functional" approach to union, it has
recently taken on broader scope, but vaguer meaning. Thus 1957 brought the
Bruges "Conference on Atlantic Community" which conspicuously omitted
the article the before Atlantic to make clearer that it meant "community"
in the older and widest sense. Then the London Atlantic Congress sponsored by
the NATO Parliamentarians Association in 1959 repeatedly used the term, "the
Atlantic Community," in the sense of something existing. Yet at the same
time its Declaration also said: "The time is ripe for these nations to
build an Atlantic Community with responsibilities extending to military,
political, economic, social and scientific fields."
The term, community, in short, seems to be moving in the
international sense from the functional and specific to the political and
general, and from the confederal to the federal type of structure. But the
degree depends so much on the user of the word, or the listener, that its
growing popularity increases the existing confusion considerably.
Unfortunately for clarity, many organizations of states or nations fall
between these -- or other -- definitions, or their own choice of terms causes
confusion. The Articles of Confederation established a most advanced type of
confederacy; Article II gave it that name -- but Article III called it a "league
of friendship," and the other Articles usually referred to it as "the
united states in congress assembled" (without the capital letters used
today). The Charter of the United Nations calls that body an "organization",
I would call it a league, leaning toward a confederation. The North Atlantic
Treaty gave no name whatever to the grouping it formed; the parties to it later
styled it the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" (NATO). It is
universally termed an alliance and is, in fact, an exceptionally developed "grand
alliance." It might well be called a league, were it not so predominantly
military in its development thus far. It has far to go before it could be
rightly called a confederation.
The U.S. Confederation Was Stronger Than Nato
Since the Nixon-Rockefeller agreement calls for a North Atlantic
Confederation, let us now compare the existing structure of the North Atlantic
alliance with that of the Articles of Confederation. However hazily the two
authors of that agreement may have had the latter in mind, this comparison will
serve to show how greatly NATO can be strengthened while remaining an
association of sovereign states -- without crossing the Rubicon that separates
confederation from a federal union of sovereign citizens.
The NATO Council, like the United States Congress under the Confederation,
is composed of delegates named, paid and instructed by each member nation's
government, with each state having one vote, regardless of the number of people
in it. NATO, like the United States then, has no executive organ but simply a
figurehead president. He serves one year and his name is as forgotten a year or
so later as are the names of all the "Presidents of the United States"
who preceded George Washington. But though the United States Congress was then
only a "diplomatic assembly," as John Adams contemptuously called it,
the Confederation it represented was far stronger than NATO structurally at
every significant point of comparison. Consider these nine points:
The Congress of the Confederation could act: the NATO Council can only
make recommendations to the member nations.
To make even these recommendations, NATO requires unanimity; the Congress
of the Confederation could act in a number of fields, by a majority of seven of
the Thirteen States, and in others, by a vote of nine states.
The North Atlantic Treaty provides no judicial machinery whatever; the
Confederation not only established machinery for settling disputes between
states but authorized Congress to act as a court of "last resort" by a
majority of seven of the Thirteen States.
With the assent of only seven states Congress had the power of fixing the
standards of weights and measures throughout the Confederation, regulating trade
between the states, establishing and regulating postal service "throughout
all the United States," appointing "all officers of the land forces,
in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers" and
commissioning all naval officers. NATO not only has none of these powers but has
never dared even to make recommendations in any of these fields.
With the assent of only nine states, the Confederation could and did make
war and peace, enter into treaties and alliances, coin money and regulate its
value, fix the expenses "for the defense and welfare of the United States,"
emit bills, borrow on the credit of the Confederation, appropriate money, decide
on the land and naval forces to be raised, and the quota to be furnished by each
state, and appoint the commander-in-chief of the army and navy. NATO has no such
powers, nor has its Council dared to make recommendations in any of these fields
except as regards the total military forces to be assigned to NATO, and the
contributions to joint defense to be made by member nations. It is not free to
choose its commander-in-chief, but must accept, in practice, an American
nominated by Washington.
Congress could not only formulate foreign policy for the Confederation but
name diplomatic envoys to other states -- as Franklin and Jefferson to France
and Adams to London. NATO has never dreamed of sending even its Secretary
General -- although Paul Henri Spaak has often been Premier and Foreign Minister
of his own country -- to speak for it in Moscow ... let alone think of naming an
envoy to represent it in any country, or formulating a NATO foreign policy
toward the world.
No state without the consent of Congress could send or receive any
diplomatic envoy, or enter into any treaty alliance or confederation, or engage
in war unless invaded. In NATO no nations -- not even the Six Nations who have
established such "communities" as the Common Market Coal and Steel
Authority and Euratom -- dream of such a commitment.
In 1783, Virginia, the largest state in the Confederation, followed the
example of Connecticut and New York, and turned over to the Confederation its
much larger and stronger claims to the Northwest Territory. The Confederation
thereafter governed this huge area. In 1784 it decided that one square mile in
each township of thirty-six in this Territory should be reserved for the
maintenance of public schools; and by the Northwest Ordnance of 1787 it provided
for the government of the Territory and for its eventual division into states
and their entry into the Confederation on an equal basis with the Original
Thirteen. Out of this territory came the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin -- after the Confederation had been transformed into the
present Federal Union.
None of the NATO nations has ever offered to turn over any of its territory
in Africa or elsewhere to the alliance; the latter has no important joint
possession of any kind to hold it together and make it less dependent on its
member nations. There has been increasing talk in NATO of the need of a common
policy for the building up of the under-developed countries, but -- despite the
fear of Communist expansion there -- nothing has been done to meet this need.
Even the talk is timid, compared to the bold solution of this problem by the
Thirteen Confederated States.
Finally, the Confederation allowed the citizens of each state to move
freely in and out of all the others, and enjoy in each all the privileges of its
own citizens. This was done "the better to secure and perpetuate mutual
friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states." NATO
faces the same need, only more acutely, but it has made no such provisions, nor
has its Council yet recommended any important step in this direction.
This may suffice to show what confederation meant from the start in United
States history, how primitive by comparison is the NATO structure, and how far
one can go in developing it into a confederation, while still keeping it an
association of sovereign states.
The "Superstate" Bogy
Governor Rockefeller said that the confederations he had in mind involved no
"superstates." Yet if he proposed concretely to bring NATO UP to the
level of the Articles of Confederation in even one or two of the above nine
respects, the cry of "superstate" would doubtless be raised. It was
raised in the Senate against the League of Nations, although that League, like
NATO today, had none of these powers our early "League of Friendship"
enjoyed. But even the most benighted Member of Congress would not think of
calling that Confederation of ours with all its powers a "superstate."
He would be laughed out of Congress, for that Confederation is indelibly
associated in the American mind with wretched weakness, not with strength.
This bogy, however, still has power to frighten American politicians. They
do not blanch at the ghosts of all the myriads who were slaughtered in World War
II because the League of Nations proved too weak. Nor do they blanch at the
certainty that far more millions will be slaughtered sooner or later if NATO is
not made strong enough to keep the peace. But they do blanch at the word "superstate."
The Nixon-Rockefeller compact, happily, calls for a North Atlantic
Confederation "strong enough to meet modern problems and challenges."
No candidate for President, or for Senator or Congressman, and certainly no
statesman, could dare propose anything less -- openly call for some solution
which he admitted was "too weak" to do the job.
Both presidential candidates in 1960, and both parties agreed that NATO is
too weak, that it must be strengthened. The candidate who won the White House --
and all those who won seats in the Senate and the House -- thus have a strong
moral commitment to the American people to unite the North Atlantic peoples
strongly enough to meet "modern problems and challenges" -- to win for
freedom without another world war or depression.
The basic question, therefore, is this: Can this obligation be met by
converting NATO into a confederation -- or "community" or "partnership"
-- that is no stronger structurally than the Articles of Confederation (to say
nothing of something weaker)?
The answer is flatly but demonstrably, No. The proof is easy: Since
so strong a "superstate" as the American Confederation failed to meet
the problems and challenges of oxcart, sailing ship years, what American in his
senses can hope that a North Atlantic Confederation can meet those of our
rocket-atomic age? The highly advanced confederation of the Thirteen States did
not face Red Russia and Red China; it faced only small tribes of Redskins, who
were as divided among themselves as the NATO "tribes" are today. The
Thirteen American States were relatively self-sufficing, with simple economies.
Yet the fact is undeniable that their super-superstate failed to meet even the
problems of that day, and has left its name as a symbol of feeble futility.
All of us Americans rightly honor our forefathers for scrapping that
Confederation promptly -- not in any gradual, evolutionary way -- before it
delivered them to anarchy, tyranny, war. We honor them for not waiting long, as
we have waited with NATO, before replacing it with a revolutionary experiment.
We revere Washington for calling on them at the Federal Convention, to "raise
a standard to which the wise and the honest" could repair -- for leading
them to take the "con" out of confederation and create a system that
was truly strong enough to meet the challenge. We rightly honor him and them,
because their answer -- federation of the free -- met the challenges of 1789,
1803, 1832 and 1861, and then of 1917, 1933, 1941, and offers now the one
reasonable hope of meeting today's and tomorrow's challenges.
The common sense conclusion is that we should waste no more billions of
taxpayer money and still more precious time on answers which failed to meet even
lesser tests; that we should try next the federal union solution that has
succeeded wherever it has been tested; that we should skip the confederation
stage now, as we should have skipped the alliance stage in 1949. But when one
draws this conclusion he is met by a perennial argument, though it is put
forward a little less dogmatically now than formerly.
We heard this argument from 1939 to 1949 when we cited the example of
American history as a warning against wasting time, money and lives trying to
secure peace and freedom through a league system, unsupplemented by an Atlantic
Federal Union. After the United Nations had to be supplemented with NATO, we
heard the same objection when we cited the American example as a warning that
alliance would also fail, and urged the Atlantic democracies to call a
convention, as the Thirteen did in 1787, to explore the possibilities offered by
the federal alternative. Now that NATO has proved inadequate, and confederation
is proposed in its place, the same objection is raised when we propose that
Atlantica skip making a costly experiment with this system that failed the
Thirteen States, and try now the method that worked so well for them -- and all
the other peoples who since have tried it.
This hardy perennial argument is that the comparison is not valid, that
conditions are too different for there to be any analogy; and especially that it
was much easier for the Thirteen to federate than it is for the Atlantic nations
to do so now.2
And so we are told that the nations around the North Atlantic are separated
by history, language, different political and economic institutions and customs,
the ocean and other barriers. The people of the Thirteen States, the argument
continues, had much more in common -- the same historical background, the same
language, the same political system, the same basic "New World"
problems and psychology, the same relatively simple economy, and they were all
on the same continent, and had never been in war with each other.
Confederation Failed Then -- in the Best Conditions
There is much that is obviously true in all this, and much that will not
stand investigation, either because it simply isn't so or omits the other side
of the picture.3 Let us pause for a
smile while we hear one contemporary witness, the English traveler, Burnaby, who
wrote after visiting the colonies in 1760:
Fire and water are not more heterogeneous than the different colonies in
North America Nothing can exceed the jealousy which they possess in regard to
each other. The inhabitants of Pennsylvania and New York have an inexhaustible
source of animosity in their jealousy for the Jerseys. Massachusetts Bay and
Rhode Island are not less interested in that of Connecticut. Even the limits and
boundaries of each colony are a constant source of litigation. In short, such is
the difference of the character, of manners, of religion, of interest in the
different colonies, that I think, if I am not wholly ignorant of the human mind,
were they left to themselves there would soon be a civil war from one end of the
continent to the other; while the Indians and negroes would, with better reason,
impatiently watch the opportunity of exterminating them altogether.
The widespread belief that it was easy to federate the Thirteen States is
more plausible than informed. It remains true that they did have certain
advantages, but it is also true that they faced difficulties we do not have
today, and that we have advantages they lacked. When the balance is struck some
may still conclude that it was less difficult to federate America then than
Atlantica now. But this leaves their argument confronted with this self-evident,
All the advantages that made federal union a workable solution for the
Thirteen States were equally enjoyed by the Confederation. Since their highly
developed type of confederation failed to work in these most advantageous
conditions, how can any practical statesmen hope that NATO will prove adequate
if only we convert it into a similar confederation -- let alone a far weaker
Whether or not the difficulties facing federation then were less than
now, there can be no doubt that we now face far more formidable dangers. It is
no less certain that we live in a world that requires much swifter political and
economic adaptation to changing conditions as the price of life, liberty and
happiness, than did the people of the American Confederation.
How then can any reasonable man believe that the practical and prudent
policy is to risk seeking salvation now in the confederation solution that
failed in more advantageous and safer conditions?
How can you agree that Washington was right in rejecting half-way measures
and in boldly raising "a standard to which the wise and the honest"
could repair, and then conclude that in our rocket-atomic day we can wisely
spare the time to try the experiment in confederation that failed in more
hopeful conditions, and at the slow-rising dawn of the steam-electric world?
See July-August Freedom &
Union for the full text of his proposal.
As if the question were one only of
relative ease, and not primarily one of relative necessity and advantage --
whether they required federation to preserve their liberties and lives then in
America more or less than we do now in Atlantica.
See the description of the Thirteen
States during their Confederation by Tom Paine and Josiah Tucker in Chapter I of
Union Now. See also the powerful case that Prime Minister Michel Debre
and Emmanuel Monick, former Governor of the Banque de France, make that "Oceans
Unite Men -- Land Divides Them," in the November 1959 Freedom &
Union, and their book, Peace by Oceanic Union (Demain La Paix,
Plon, Paris), from which this article was drawn. Land formed so much more of a
barrier in 1787 than water that the delegates of South Carolina to the Federal
Convention found it easier, safer and faster to come to Philadelphia by ship.