"Respectively" means individually. James Madison commented on the meaning of the term "states" in the Report of 1799 to the Virginia House of Delegates (my emphasis):
The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution or compact," is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection. It is indeed true, that the term "states," is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus, it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments, established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and, lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because, in that sense, the Constitution was submitted to the "states," in that sense the "states" ratified it; and, in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact, from which the powers of the federal government result.
If you disagree with this definition of power it would be helpful for me to know it.
I agree with the part about the right of governing. Virginia ratification delegates were concerned about possible future dominance and oppression by the Northern States, as Bledsoe pointed out. Why would they want the people of the oppressing states, who might be a majority of the people of the United States, to have the right of voting on whether a state or group of states could secede?
You might take a look at de Tocqueville’s statement in my post 230 above. It points out the basic reason why some states might not want other states to secede. If those states or the people in those states form a majority of the Union, there would be no hope for a state that was being oppressed or taken economic advantage of. Given that, why would states join such a Union unless they had an escape clause?
How about ejecting a State from the Union? Can a State be ejected from the Union?
Not without the state's permission, according to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything outlawing secession. If it had, it wouldn't have been ratified, IMO. The Constitution did not give the power to other states or the central government to block secession.
The Union predates the Constitution and is not dependent upon it for the Union's existence or it's dissolution.
You are channeling Lincoln. He argued that the Union predates the states.
Now perhaps is the time to provide the source you asked about in your next post for George Washington's statement about North Carolina not being in the Union. The source of my George Washington quote was "Gales and Seaton’s History of Debates in Congress" for August 22, 1789. See Link. My emphasis below.
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 ..."
Here Washington referred to "the present Union." He recognized that the present Union was not the same Union that existed under the Articles. How can anyone contend that the present Union extends back to 1774 or that the "perpetual" Union formed under the Articles was the same Union as that formed under the Constitution?
Had North Carolina continued to not ratify the Constitution, I believe it would have peacefully remained outside of the Union formed under the Constitution. Thus, it was possible to leave the "Union" that preceded the states. The other states had withdrewn from the Union under the Articles and formed a new Union under the Constitution.
An association (the Continental Congress) did exist in 1774. It was formed to speak and act to England in a united way, something more powerful than 13 separate entities acting and speaking alone. But it was an association in which the independent and sovereign states did not have to do what the association said. The states were sovereign and independent, so the Continental Congress said.
We joined with Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. to fight World War II. We were the Allies, an association fighting against the Axis powers. Does this association, formed to fight a war, mean that we are bound to them in a future government from which we cannot leave? Does the fact that we are members of the UN and a signatory to the UN charter mean that we can't withdraw from that organization if we so desire? If not, one world government here we come.
If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract …
If one group of states can violate a contract with impunity and transfer large sums of wealth from the other states to themselves because they outvoted the other states, then I don't see that as a very desirable contract to have entered without an escape clause. As long as the Union formed by the Constitution provided sufficient benefit to the Southern states for them to remain, they did not take the major step of secession.
The majority of Republican congressmen (68 of them including the 1859 Republican nominee for Speaker of the House, Sherman of Ohio [Union General Sherman's brother]) endorsed statements like the following in Helper's book, thus threatening the foundation of the Southern economy. [See Link to Helper’s book]
... our purpose is as fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and -- so help us God -- abolish it we will! [page 187]
We believe it is, as it ought to be, the desire, the determination, and the destiny of this party [Republican] to give the death-blow to slavery; ... [page 234]
We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards ... [page 149]
I don’t have a problem with what Madison wrote there. In that part of my post 263, I was concerned with Davis’ “all” versus the Tenth Amendment’s “powers”.
Why would they want the people of the oppressing states, who might be a majority of the people of the United States, to have the right of voting on whether a state or group of states could secede?
Because it might lead to a parting of the ways without conflict.
Or
Because the shoe might have been on the other foot and they would have had the right of voting on whether some other state or group of states could secede.
Or
Because the honorable thing to do would be to get agreement from other parties to an agreement rather than unilaterally breach it.
I’m not that interested in this right now, but you asked and those answers came to mind quickly.
Given that, why would states join such a Union unless they had an escape clause?
One reason might be that they perceived the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. Why did people used to promise “till death do us part, etc.” without an escape clause?
Why do people have children and thus form a family without having an escape clause?
You might take a look at de Tocqueville’s statement…
His last paragraph was:
If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.
Limiting my response to his scenario, I’d say that if one of the federated states had done as he writes, it would have been in the wrong and the other federated states would have been justified in taking appropriate action if they could.
Not without the state's permission, according to the Constitution.
Bearing in mind that I think the Constitution is of limited importance in this, out of curiosity I have to ask: What part of the Constitution are you writing about?
You quoted George Washington: “…as that State is not a member of the present Union…”
That does give me some pause, though it’s not the equivalent of an Ordinance of Secession or formal declaration stating dissolution of one Union and formation of another Union which are the kinds of things I would like to see as proof that one Union ended and a new one began. I’ll have to think about it.
We joined with Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. to fight World War II. We were the Allies, an association fighting against the Axis powers. Does this association, formed to fight a war, mean that we are bound to them in a future government from which we cannot leave?
And:
Does the fact that we are members of the UN and a signatory to the UN charter mean that we can't withdraw from that organization if we so desire?
Did we sign up to that?
In any case, where have I said that a party to an agreement (whether it be a simple agreement, a compact, a contract, a treaty) may not under any circumstances withdraw, secede or whatever, particularly if another party to it breached the agreement? My disagreement has been with the position that the Northern States had no right to take action against the Southern States for seceding. If the Southern States breached the “agreement”, the Northern States had just as much right to take action as the Southern States had right to take action if the Northern States breached the “agreement.” As an extension, I see little point in entering an agreement if one party can unilaterally breach it at will and the other parties have no recourse.
You begin: If one group of states can violate a contract with impunity…
And I finish with: …I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.