No, you don't understand. They're coming, hat in hand, to the other states asking to be admitted. To, in effect, be created as a state. And the other states may, through their representatives in Congress, say no. Until Congress says yes then they have no status in the body politic. They are a territory, without elective representation unless Congress gives it's OK. They aren't in the same league as a state much less equal footing.Right, and once admitted are on equal footing with the remainder of the states, be they any of the original 13 or not. The denial of statehood at times throughout our history reinforces what I'm saying, and certainly the admission of states in pairs prior to the war backs the notion that all shared equally in the republic.
Of course you're twisting, claiming that somehow I implied equal footing for territories, when that was never said. In addition to history being on my side, I also have the good fortune to point out your need to twist what has been said and make things up in order to attempt to further your argument. People understand that such tactics are the last ditch in a hopeless pursuit of a flawed argument, and are free to make their own determination as to who it is that's changing their story at the 11th hour.
Your delusions are overwhelming any significance in your posts. You just went through a complete misstatement of what I said and argued with NS about how your misstatement was really what I said then are forced to admit that Alabama had NO original sovereignty and is ENTIRELY a state ONLY because Congress said it could be which is what NS and I have said all along.
Then you try and make it appear that the admission of states in pairs early in our history has something to do with their "equality" to other states when all but the most numb of numb-nuts knows that the pairing was done in an attempt to balance the Free and Slave state power in the Congress. It had NOTHING to do with state "equality".