Actually, the Union did create the States, out of former British colonies.
No State won its independence all by itself. It was a joint, unified effort of all the Colonies/States, acting as one. This is obvious.
The Declaration itself memorializes the above fact, when in the first paragraph it refers to us as “one people,” and when in the last paragraph, it directly says that independence was being declared by “the united States of America.” Furthermore, it was done “by Authority of the good People of these Colonies.” That’s the whole body of the people, of all the Colonies, not by the authority of only one Colony or State. Then, again, it directly makes reference to “these United Colonies.” Only then does it begin to refer to them as “Free and Independent States.”
We won independence as one people. Then for a time the States had the power to become independent themselves if they saw fit. Nobody was going to stop them if that’s what they wanted.
Right up until they signed on to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and later the U.S. Constitution.
Subsequently, for any State to leave, they’re going to have to get the consent of We the People, the whole body of the people, to break up the Union.
By the way, it doesn’t go without saying to point out that after the original thirteen, the rest of the States were particularly the direct creation of the Union.
Well, except maybe Texas. They were already a free republic, and voted to allow the U.S. to annex them and then make them a State in the Union.
And you base that on what?
That "No State" comment rankled me as a Texan, but at the end of your post you corrected yourself.
The Allied Command beat the Germans and the Japanese in WWII, but that doesn't mean that allies that band together to fight an enemy have somehow been forever and irretrievably absorbed into a wartime organization that they joined to defeat a common enemy. A step that major would require a formal procedure, guidelines for what is permitted and what not, and formal acceptance of such by the states and their people.
The Declaration itself memorializes the above fact, when in the first paragraph it refers to us as “one people,” and when in the last paragraph, it directly says that independence was being declared by “the united States of America.” Furthermore, it was done “by Authority of the good People of these Colonies.” That’s the whole body of the people, of all the Colonies, not by the authority of only one Colony or State. Then, again, it directly makes reference to “these United Colonies.” Only then does it begin to refer to them as “Free and Independent States.”
The "thirteen united States" should have given you a clue. Just because the Declaration called them states doesn't mean they were in your Union at that point rather than in a wartime alliance to fight a common enemy. If the states were free and independent and fully sovereign as the Declaration said, then they were not subject to any other state or to the Continental Congress for that matter, or else they would not be independent and sovereign.
You can't have it both ways. Either the Declaration, the Continental Congress, and King George III are wrong with respect to the independence and sovereignty of the states (note the use of the plural) or you and Lincoln are wrong in your arguments.
From the Declaration:
... all political connection between them and the State [singular] of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States [plural] may of right do.
From the Continental Congress to the states in 1777 asking that they agree to the Articles of Confederation. If the states were already your "Union" rather than simply in an alliance, why would the Continental Congress need to plead with them to agree to the first real act of formal Union?
...Let them [the Articles] be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties . . .
And King George III:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Are you sure you aren't Chief Justice Roberts arguing about the meaning of the word "state"? As Justice Scalia said in his recent dissent to Robert's opinion in King s. Burwell:
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Adequate Care Act says "Exchange established by the State" it means "Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government." That is of course quite absurd, ...
In ignoring the actual words of the Declaration, the words of the Continental Congress, and the King George II's words in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, you are making the same type of "interpretive jiggery-pokery" or "somersaults of statutory interpretation" (to use words from Scalia's dissent) that Roberts did.
Speaking of Obamacare, there was an insightful letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal recently by a Dave Ross of Cincinnati about Roberts' logic in King vs. Burwell. It refers to Roberts' promise to only call balls and strikes (rather than legislate from the bench) during his confirmation hearing as Chief Justice.
If Justice Roberts were calling "balls and strikes," the actual location of the ball would be immaterial since he'd know what the pitcher "intended."
If you argue that the Union formed by the Constitution was just a continuation of the Union under the Articles or even your mythical Union of 1775-76, then you ought to consider what George Washington told Congress on August 22, 1789:
The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:
... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
From Congress on September 12, 1789:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.