Replies

Ignorance begets ignorance I see.

The Articles were ratified BY THE STATES. The ratification process itself demands the states had their sovereignty to ratify or reject the agreement BEFORE they could do so, and the Articles themselves acknowledge the "sovereign and independent states" entering into the agreement. So if that's too complicated, from 1776 to 1781, what political entity was Maryland if not a State? Did the Constitution or the Articles CREATE Maryland as you and Lincoln insist?

Vermont, yes. They were an independent, sovereign state until 1791 when they were admitted as a state.

So when Lincoln said "NO ONE of them ever having been a State out of the Union" was he correct "strictly speaking" or not? Did VT reserve the right to secede but no other? Or MD? Or did the fact that many of the states explicitly reserved the right in their State Constitutions become null and void 80 years later because some autocrat said so?

Sure, we can leave MD and TX and VT and RI and any other States and inconvenient facts aside as you wish until you can "validate" your point. I stand corrected once again.

Did VT reserve the right to secede but no other? Or MD? Or did the fact that many of the states explicitly reserved the right in their State Constitutions become null and void 80 years later because some autocrat said so?

Virginia's ratification:

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia . . . declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes. . .

Mr. Madison, during Virginia's ratification:

That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.

The Articles were ratified BY THE STATES. The ratification process itself demands the states had their sovereignty to ratify or reject the agreement BEFORE they could do so, and the Articles themselves acknowledge the "sovereign and independent states" entering into the agreement. So if that's too complicated, from 1776 to 1781, what political entity was Maryland if not a State? Did the Constitution or the Articles CREATE Maryland as you and Lincoln insist?

You tell me. What did Maryland refer to themselves as during that period?

So when Lincoln said "NO ONE of them ever having been a State out of the Union" was he correct "strictly speaking" or not?

He was correct. Vermont was no more a state prior to joining than Texas or California had been. Their status as a state within the Union dated when they were either admitted to the Union under the Constitution or, in the case of the first 13, when they recognized themselves as such in the Articles of Confederation.

No state, regadless of their status prior to joining the Union, has the right to leave without the consent of the other states. The Supreme Court ruled that in 1869.

Sure, we can leave MD and TX and VT and RI and any other States and inconvenient facts aside as you wish until you can "validate" your point. I stand corrected once again.

No inconvenient facts need be left aside. Just your odd interpretations.