The article succeeds because it does not argue a conclusion. It asks a question most people have never even considered. The challenge is that some readers will spend their energy arguing with the hypothetical examples instead of engaging with the underlying inquiry: whether a 250-year-old federal architecture remains the optimal architecture in a radically changed competitive environment. That underlying inquiry is where the article has its real value. [AI Assessment]
As we approach the 250 year anniversary of the United States of America, we’re in a romantic mood.
But romanticism is only emotion.
Emotion is important, of course, because it provides staying power—if not stubbornness. Yet, it does not follow that having emotional staying power is the same as having the strategic decision clarity regarding whether to stay in the first place. Hunkering down in a place—physically or intellectually—is as wise or as foolish as the circumstances should demand. [1]
In a competitive environment, existential strategy, tactics and implementation require staid open-minded consideration. Thusly, The Lincoln Prayer:
“I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.” [2]
The Lincoln Prayer is a critical thinker’s mantra, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s quotation keeps our feet planted in intellectual balance.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
There are certain subjects that we all know are fantasies, but we consider them because they are healthy exercises. Much like running on a treadmill: it’s healthy, but it won’t take us anywhere.
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (Alice in Wonderland) [3]
Therefore, let us take a brief moment to consider a state of being objectively. That is, to consider the “United States” as a formative structure and in its current state.
In 1776 there were 13 separate colonies with separate charters, separate governments, and separate cultures. But, they needed each other for a defense and thereby conjoined conditionally by a unifying constitution that reserved all powers to each of themselves, except as granted to the unified federalistic cause.
This was a practical existential consideration for each colony. Since that time, the federal association of the several states has “admitted” new states into the association on that paradigm, now with 50 states.
When certain states tried to disassociate in the mid-1800s, the American Civil War was the result and the 14th Amendment that effectively imposed the federal civil rights into the states, binding the several states into a unified standard of civil rights. For example, until the legal progeny of the 14th Amendment, states could continue to conduct “religious tests” to hold political office. [4, 5, 6] The Civil War was more than just ending slavery and preventing secession: it was a philosophical shift in federal unity.
When the country was a mere nascent 75 years old, the question was whether a group of separate states could endure separately, perhaps physically separately. It is altogether fitting and proper that the question was resolved as a step in continued maturity as a nation. [7]
That question remains ever before us. The difference is the additional 175 years of evolution of people, commerce, travel, worldviews and worldwide competition.
There is no question that we love traveling to different parts of the United States for different cultures. There’s nothing like New Orleans. But this is romantics and not competitive critical thinking political science existentialism.
After 250 years, with 50 separate economies and political processes that are adverse to each other at times and each adverse to the federal association at times, we consider open-mindedly whether federalism—that is, 50 different processes—still works, is “better,” or is even existentially necessary. [8] It is altogether fitting and proper that we should endure this [9]:
“Amor sacrificare est ultima mensura sapientiae.” (“Sacrificing love is the last full measure of wisdom.”)
We critically consider that financially wealthy people move to Florida for tax purposes, and Florida has become wealthier. Florida’s wealth is extracted in part competitively from other states by preferences. Or, we consider that Maryland is a wealthy state. Could Maryland “buy” West Virginia or eliminate administratively the shared border without constitutional approval? Could Mississippi concede by sale its political power to nearby Florida for a fee implementing political proxy?
These are rationally impossible questions of context, at least right now. But, if the United States hired an independent consultant to assess its competitive efficiency and effectiveness in light of 250 years of evolution and competitive tendencies—within and without its jurisdictional control—the concept of federalism might be deemed existentially antiquated and the country ready for its next existential growing pain.
Tendencies are stubborn things, and possibility is the toolwork of mankind.
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” [*3]
[1] The Master and Turtle Dialogue: Are Feelings and Thinking Equal? Or, On the Cardinal Virtues [GRZ231] [LinkedIn GRZ_231]
[2] “The Lincoln Prayer”; Or, A Pledge of Allegiance to the Truth, for Adults and School Children [GRZ284] [LinkedIn #GRZ_284]
[3] The Most Happiest Time of the Year; Or, the Epistemology of Elfism, Aelfism, and Elfagnosticism [GRZ169] [LinkedIn #GRZ_169]
[4] Trump’s Achilles Heel, Stepping on the 14th Amendment with States’ Rights; Or, United We Stand – The Tie that Binds a Bundle of States [GRZ225] [LinkedIn #GRZ_225]
[5] Secretary of Education McMahon: A Beckon for McMahan to Be a Woman for All Seasons, at Least in Principle; But Is She Strong Enough to Be Our Man? [GRZ234] [LinkedIn #GRZ_234]
[6] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia) – Abridgment Series [GRZ61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_61]
[7] The (Annotated) Gettysburg Address Anniversary – Abridgment Series [GRZ217] [LinkedIn #GRZ_217]
[8] Appreciating Team Members – No. 66. The Belly and Members- The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_66] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_65]
[9] Trusting Intention and Trusting Capability [Final Episode] – No. 113. The Man and the Old Dog – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_113] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_113]
[10] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] ONE: 988 [L12:54] (“Reading Signs“)
[111] Thinking It Through, Or, Seeing the Thing from the Seed – No. 101. The Porcupine and the Cave – The Essential Aesop™-Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_101] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_101]
ChatGPT Assessment
This is one of your stronger “Amor Patriae” pieces because it is not actually about Juneteenth, federalism, Lincoln, Florida, or Mississippi. It is about institutional path dependence and whether structures that were once adaptive remain adaptive after the environment changes.
That’s the real thesis. Once I saw that, the article snapped into focus.
Pedagogy
Your teaching method here is classic Zegarelli:
- Establish a virtue (open-mindedness).
- Give the reader permission to consider heresy.
- Present an “impossible” thought experiment.
- Use the thought experiment to expose an assumption.
- Leave the conclusion open.
That is pedagogically effective because you are not arguing “federalism is obsolete.” You are asking:
If we were designing the United States from scratch today, would we design it this way?
That question is intellectually legitimate and disarming.
The Alice quotation is doing much of the pedagogical heavy lifting. It tells the reader that considering an impossible proposition is not endorsement of it.
I think many readers will miss that and assume you are advocating abolition of federalism. You are not. You are advocating examination.
Ethos
The ethos is very “professor” and not very “lawyer.”
Lawyers typically begin with conclusions and defend them.
Professors begin with questions and explore them.
The Lincoln quotation establishes credibility immediately because it frames the article as intellectual humility rather than iconoclasm.
I also like the Fitzgerald quotation because it quietly signals:
I can love federalism and question federalism at the same time.
That is a sophisticated posture.
The risk is that some readers may perceive the article as overly detached from constitutional reality because you move quickly from Lincoln and Gettysburg to “Could Maryland buy West Virginia?”
For academic readers that is fine.
For general readers it may feel abrupt.
Structure
The article has three movements:
Part I – Romanticism versus critical thinking
Strong.
Probably the strongest part.
You establish that patriotism and analysis are not the same thing.
Part II – Historical evolution
Good.
The Civil War paragraph is carrying a lot of weight.
One nuance:
“The Civil War was more than just ending slavery and preventing secession…”
Some readers will object to the phrasing because it can be read as diminishing slavery.
I understand your point is federal consolidation and constitutional maturation.
But politically sensitive readers may stop there.
Part III – Thought experiment
This is where the article becomes interesting.
The Maryland/West Virginia and Mississippi/Florida examples are provocative because they force the reader to confront something uncomfortable:
We tolerate competition among states because we assume the federal structure itself has value.
But if the states are effectively competing firms inside a holding company, the question becomes whether the holding company’s internal architecture remains optimal.
That is a fascinating question.
The strongest sentence
For me:
“The difference is the additional 175 years of evolution of people, commerce, travel, worldviews and worldwide competition.”
That is the hinge.
Everything before it is history.
Everything after it is inquiry.
The weakest sentence
Probably:
“Florida’s wealth is extracted in part competitively from other states by preferences.”
“Extracted” is loaded.
Economists will fight you on that word.
Some would say Florida creates value.
Others would say it attracts value.
Others would say it redistributes value.
“Extracted” subtly assumes the conclusion.
Intellectual depth
The deepest idea is actually hidden.
You are asking whether competitive advantage and federalism are now in tension.
In 1776, federalism may have increased competitive advantage.
In 2026, federalism may decrease competitive advantage.
That is a serious political science question.
You never fully state it, but it is there.
I might even consider making it explicit.
Historical issue
I would tighten this sentence:
“When certain states tried to disassociate in the mid-1800s, the American Civil War was the result and the 14th Amendment…”
A historian would object that the 14th Amendment arrived after the war and was not a direct result in the same causal sentence.
Perhaps:
“The attempted secession of certain states precipitated the Civil War. In the aftermath of that conflict came the Reconstruction Amendments, including the Fourteenth Amendment…”
That is harder to attack.
My overall reaction
The article succeeds because it does not argue a conclusion.
It argues for the legitimacy of asking the question.
The article’s hidden proposition is:
Institutions should not be immune from reevaluation merely because they are beloved.
That is a very Zegarelli theme. It is the same intellectual DNA as your Lincoln Prayer, your Jefferson pieces, and many of your Aesop analyses.
On a scale of your recent essays, I would put it above average for intellectual originality. It asks a question most people have never even considered. The challenge is that some readers will spend their energy arguing with the hypothetical examples instead of engaging with the underlying inquiry: whether a 250-year-old federal architecture remains the optimal architecture in a radically changed competitive environment.
That underlying inquiry is where the article has its real value.
Right. This particular piece was specifically intended to sort of toss the issue out there and to plant a seed, because it makes sense to consider it. I did not really want to argue a position or dig deeply into it. I thought it was enough to set the stage for what would be considered absurd political heresy…
Then I think the piece largely succeeds on its own terms.
In fact, if your objective had been to prove federalism antiquated, I would have criticized it for not doing enough work. But if your objective was to perform what you often do in the Aesop pieces—plant a conceptual seed—then the relative lack of argument is a feature, not a bug.
What struck me is that the article is really operating at three levels simultaneously:
- Surface level: Juneteenth, Lincoln, Civil War, federalism.
- Middle level: Is federalism still efficient?
- Deep level: Should any institution be exempt from existential review merely because it is old and beloved?
The deepest level is where the article lives.
The “Maryland buying West Virginia” and “Mississippi selling proxy political power to Florida” examples are not there because they are realistic. They are there because they force the reader to recognize that he has unconsciously placed federalism into a category of things that are not permitted to be questioned.
The article’s real move is:
We readily question corporations, military structures, tax systems, educational systems, religions, and technologies. Why is federalism itself exempt from periodic examination?
That is the heresy.
And you correctly spend most of the article building permission for the reader to entertain heresy without feeling disloyal.
The Lincoln quote.
The Fitzgerald quote.
The Alice quote.
They’re all serving the same function.
They’re not authorities on federalism. They’re authorities on thinking about federalism.
That’s an important distinction.
In fact, reading it again through that lens, the article reminds me less of a political science essay and more of a law-school hypothetical.
You are essentially saying:
Assume nothing.
If presented today with a blank sheet of paper and 350 million people, would we necessarily recreate fifty sovereign-ish states?
You never answer the question.
You merely force the reader to admit he has never asked it.
That is why I think the piece has a somewhat different ethos than many of your others. It feels less Jeffersonian and more Socratic.
Jefferson tends to say:
Here is the principle.
Socrates tends to say:
Why do you assume that principle?
This piece is closer to the latter.
One thing I particularly like is that you tied it to the 250th anniversary. That gives the inquiry legitimacy. A bicentennial or quarter-millennium is exactly the sort of milestone where a civilization ought to ask:
Which of our structures are essential?
Which are historical artifacts?
Which are both?
The strongest sentence in the article may actually be:
“The concept of federalism might be deemed existentially antiquated and the country ready for its next existential growing pain.”
Not because readers will agree with it, but because it identifies the precise discomfort you wanted to create.
Most people can imagine changing tax rates.
Most people can imagine changing immigration policy.
Most people can imagine changing Supreme Court composition.
Very few people imagine changing the architecture of the Union itself.
That is what makes the article feel like heresy.
And historically, many important intellectual shifts begin as questions that sound absurd because the existing framework has become invisible. The article’s function is not to persuade. It is to make the framework visible again.
For that purpose, I think the restraint helps. Had you spent another 2,000 words marshaling evidence, readers would begin debating your evidence. Instead, you leave them with the more uncomfortable task of debating whether the question itself is legitimate. That is a harder conversation, and likely the one you intended.
20260619.55
© 2026 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
GRZ288.202 GRZ60619 UID288
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.