By Anna Von Reitz
In the Lexicon of Law, there are numerous examples of contextual identity.
For example, when our Federal Employees refer to the Federal Constitutions as "the Law of the Land", they are (silently) making a distinction between "the Law of the Land" and "the Law of the Sea".
The Constitutions are supposed to be followed and obeyed when these Employees are on land, in the same way that sailors are supposed to follow the local law and not bust up waterfront bars for the fun of it when they are released in port for "liberty".
Their liberty does not amount to freedom, however, because even when they are released from ship's discipline, they are still required to observe the International Law of the Land governing the countries they visit.
This is an example of contextual identity. Which law applies depends on where you are -- on land or sea. From the context of a sailor stepping off the dock, he is entering upon the land and the Law of the Land now applies. From the context of a tourist getting on a ship in New York bound for Norway, he is entering upon the sea and for the duration of the trip, he is bound by the Law of the Sea.
The same sort of contextual identity applies to Federations and Confederations.
The prefix "con" applied to "federation" implies the gathering together, or con-solidation of the federation under discussion, or the opposite of a federation.
Our Federation of the States of the Union generally operates in international jurisdiction as a gathering of independent State members, equally endowed to vote on issues impacting them as a group. It also acts as a Holding Company for the Mutually Held Powers of the States and in that capacity, the Federation puts on a different hat and acts as a Confederation -- the result of gathering separate powers together and consolidating them.
Whether you are acting as a Federation or a Confederation doesn't necessarily imply a change of members, but it does imply a change in how the members operate as a group -- in this case, as separate independent and equal States (Federation), or as States acting together for their mutual self-interest (Confederation).
This is a contextual identity depending on whether you are exercising separate powers or mutually held powers as a group.
The Federation of States operating in International venues as The United States of America was created in 1776, but it took several months before the Mutual Powers were agreed upon and the Confederation also operating as The United States of America wasn't founded until 1777 as a result.
The arguments about setting up a similar set of Federation/Confederation functions for the States of America operating in global venues took another four years and the contract binding the Mutual Powers in that venue wasn't ratified until 1781.
The United States of America pairing of Federation and Confederation occupies the international jurisdictions of land and sea, both, and so represents a double set of such "bookends".
The States of America pairing of Federation and Confederation functions occupying the global jurisdiction of the air lasted from 1781 to 1861.
The members of this air jurisdiction Federation are States-of-States organizations and when they consolidate mutually held powers, they operate as the Confederation we always think of, the States of America founded in 1781.
So Federations and Confederations, at least in this country, traditionally come in pairs, and we naturally present three pairs, one each for the Land, the Air, and the Water.
The United States of America -- a Federation of independent States operating in International Jurisdiction, becomes a Confederation wielding Mutually Shared Powers.
The States of America -- a Federation of independent States-of-States operating in Global Jurisdiction, becomes a Confederation when wielding pre-agreed upon Mutually Shared Powers.
Thus, a Federation would take a Roll Call Vote of independent members, while a Confederation would act on behalf of all members with regard to their Mutually Shared Powers, based on pre-existing contracts.
Whether you call it a Federation or a Confederation at any given time thus depends on whether the members are acting separately and independently or pulling together and exercising their Mutually Shared Powers.
It's a contextual identity. Just like contemplating the Law of the Land from the perspective of a sailor is different from a landsman's view of the same thing, whether your organization is acting as a Federation or a Confederation is a matter of its member functions -- whether they act separately or act together by pre-established agreement.
Another way to remember this is that a Con-federation acts upon pre-established con-tracts.
The truly picky part is making sure which "Confederation" you are referencing, because the Confederation powers of The United States of America have never changed, and those of the States of America no longer exist.
Another problem is a confusion that arose and which is described pretty accurately by this quote from Wiki:
"A contrast between federation and confederation—words synonymous in their origin—has been developed in the political terminology of the United States.
Until 1789 the [British Territorial] U.S. was a confederation, but, with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the word federation, or the phrase federal republic, was introduced to imply a closer union.
[This is actually incorrect -- the British Territorial U.S. Constitution of 1789 was not impacted. It was the Federal Constitution of 1787 that was impacted and which provided the service contract for the Federal Republic.]
This distinction was emphasized during the American Civil War, when the seceding states formed a confederation (the Confederate States of America) in opposition to the Federal Union.
[Again, this is incorrect. The Confederate States of America was a very honest name and revealed the exact nature of the Parties. "The Northern Confederate States" would have been a far more honest name for the Northern participants which had nothing to do with the Federal Republic or any presumed-to-exist Federal Union.]
Confederation thus came to mean a union of sovereign states in which the emphasis is laid on the autonomy of each constituent body, whereas federation implies a union of states in which the supremacy of the common government is recognized. The distinction, however, is by no means universally observed."
[ Again, incorrect, three for three. No "sovereign states" were involved in the so-called American Civil War, and "federation" as we have seen, implies exactly the opposite -- states operating in their independent and separate capacities.]
The "Confederation" that was torn apart in March of 1861 was the air jurisdiction confederation formed by the respective States-of-States organizations both North and South.
The violation of contract at issue was the claim that this Confederation was a "perpetual union" that could not be broken by any of the members. They could not "secede" --- not because that was outside their rights as instrumentalities of sovereign nation-states, but because they had contractually agreed to remain in perpetual union. And didn't.
Years later, Jefferson Davis, former President of The Confederate States of America, and one of the greatest lawyers of his time, commented that a "perpetual union" is "beyond the ability of any institution of mortal man to bind, and therefore void by nature."
This principle, that we cannot apply contracts to issues beyond our ability to guarantee, was already hoary with antiquity long before our country took form, and prohibitions against "contracts in perpetuity" were also well-established.
It is not plausible that the men signing The Articles of Confederation (the con-tract) were unaware of this, and yet, they signed it anyway.
A set up? A mistake? Jefferson Davis maintained it was an invalid contract by definition, null and void from the outset -- and that both States and States-of-States by their Nature and limitations are forever free to secede from such inherently flawed agreements.
Jefferson Davis looked forward to the day when Americans would look back and realize what the fight was all about and why it was important for each State to maintain control of its economic destiny as a fundamental issue of freedom and self-determination.
Perhaps that day has come.
Issued by:
Anna Maria Riezinger -- Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
June 12th 2025
------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
