Nathan B Forrest's Address to the Pole Bearers

Of course it is. The federal government wants to be supreme, and will never brook for dissent against it. You don’t actually believe that the Supreme Court always makes decisions that are constitutional do you? I mean look at Rove vs. Wade. The Federal government only cares about its own power.

Just in case you didn’t know, the democrat party used to be the conservative party and the party that supported less government and lower taxes.

Yeah, Bryant and Roosevelt and Carter were rock-ribbed conservatives. </sarcasm>

Jefferson was a democratic republican. Not quite the same thing. But he was conservative. He supported the rights of the states, and religious freedom. He opposed Hamilton and other federalists’ monarchists ideas and spoke out against the mounting debt. As president he lowered taxes, closed “unnecessary offices”, as well as cut “useless establishments and expenses.” He doubled the size of the United States by the Louisiana purchase and with congress agreed to authorize funding for the construction of West Point. True, he had his failings too, but he was a lot more conservative than many of the presidents we have had.

Back in the 1860s it was. Around the turn of the century (1900) it began its slow change (which took over 60 years to complete) to become what it is today.

You don’t actually believe that the Supreme Court always makes decisions that are constitutional do you?

What's that got to do with anything? FTR: no, I don't believe that every decision SCOTUS makes is necessarily constitutional. But they're still the law. You do believe in the law, don't you? Dred Scott v. Sandford was one of the poorest decisions ever handed down, but it was still law. Roe v. Wade is crap but we're stuck with it until we can build a super-majority.

But they're still the law.

Yes and no. It is treated as such and many accept it as such or are forced to accept it as such. However, when the Federal government acts outside the bounds set for it by the constitution, it is acting illegally itself, and thus such laws are technically invalid.

Back in the 1860s it was. Around the turn of the century (1900) it began its slow change (which took over 60 years to complete) to become what it is today.

Southern history is constantly changing.

You don’t actually believe that the Supreme Court always makes decisions that are constitutional do you?

Well, yes, by definition they are. People might believe them wrong, and the court may reverse itself from time to time, but whatever the court says is constitutional is constitutional because the Constitution gives them that authority.

However, when the Federal government acts outside the bounds set for it by the constitution, it is acting illegally itself, and thus such laws are technically invalid.

And who decides that?

Her feelings apparently.

So if the Supreme Court were to decide that the constitution was unconstitutional, then that would be a constitutional decision? I don't think so. Btw, the supreme court's power is defined in the Constitution as thus: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is the sole authority on what is constitutional or not. The States also have the right to judge what is constitutional or not. After all, if the federal government is made to be the sole judge of its own powers, then there is no limit to government power. As Jefferson wrote, "that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

Also, the Supreme Court cannot go against the constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the opinion of the supreme court.

And who decides that?

I think it is pretty clear cut in most all cases. But if it is not then the courts and the states have a right to judge. If the constitution does not give the federal government authority to do a certain thing, and the federal government does it anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the federal government is acting in an unconstitutional and therefore illegal manner (since the constitution is the supreme law of the land).

I don't think so. Btw, the supreme court's power is defined in the Constitution as thus: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." powers, then there is no limit to government power.

You left out the next part:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

And there is a limit to government power. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote:

"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."

Other remedies are the amendment process and rebellion. The former is hard. The latter comes with no guarantee of success.

As for Jefferson and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I'll point out that the other states explicitly rejected his interpretation. Seven states responded directly to Virginia and Kentucky's appeal by refusing to pass the resolution. Four more states passed bills explicitly disapproving of the resolutions, and four more states simply ignored it.

Responding to the criticism, Virginia passed the Report of 1800, explaining that they didn't really mean it. In that, they write:

t has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution.
But a declaration that proceedings of the Federal Government are not warranted by the Constitution, is a novelty neither among the citizens, nor among the legislatures of the states; nor are the citizens or the legislature of Virginia, singular in the example of it.
Nor can the declarations of either, whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government, or whether made before or after judicial decisions thereon, be deemed, in any point of view, an assumption of the office of the judge. The declarations, in such cases, are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged.

So according to the authors of the resolution that you cite, any statement of the unconstitutionality of an action of the federal government is simply a statement of opinion, not something with any legal force.

George Washington was appalled by what Jefferson wrote, and in a letter to Patrick Henry he characterized it as, "the endeavors of a certain party among us to disquiet the public mind among us with unfounded alarms; to arraign every act of the administration; to set the people at variance with their government; and to embarrass all its measures."

I wasn’t trying to leave anything out, I was just quoting the first line which pretty much summed up the rest. My point still stands. Nowhere is it written that the Supreme Court or any other branch of the Federal government is to be the sole determiner of the extent of the power of the Federal government. Jefferson and Madison’s statements which I quoted before still stand. The idea that objections to unconstitutional acts of the federal government have no legal force is interesting, as an unconstitutional act by the federal government is in itself also illegal and having no legal force backed by the constitution.

“The Declaration of Independence did not create the Union.”

Your statement, “The Declaration of Independence did not create the Union.” is an utterly false statement. It is also a false statement which attempts to rewrite history for the purpose of giving a false justification for the neo-confederate mythology. The United States as a matter of undeniable historical record came into existence as one nation of thirteen confederated sovereign states upon the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, 2 and 4 July 1776, by the Second Continental Congress.

Merriam-Webster publishes the standard dictionaries for the usage of American English, and it defines the word, “Union”, as:

union....noun:: a group of states or nations that are ruled by one government or that agree to work together.

Merriam-Webster also defines the word, “United” as it is used in the style, “United States of America” or “united States of America”:

united...adjective: involving people or groups working together to achieve something: made up of members who share the same purpose, interest, etc.

Using the Merriam-Webster definitions we can see that the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 used the phrase, “united States of America” to describe by definition the thirteen former colonies as thirteen “groups working together” “in union with each other” to achieve independence as “one government” in the form of the Second Continental Congress.

Another source of evidence demonstrating the “united States of America” was conceived by the incorporation of thirteen sovereign States as one nation is the “Resolution introduced in the Continental Congress by Richard Henry Lee (Virginia) proposing a Declaration of Independence, June 7, 1776”:

June 7, 1776

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The Lee Resolution, June 7, 1776, demonstrated how the “United Colonies” planned on the eve of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence a plan for the proposed “united States of America” to “take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and “a plan of confederation be prepared” as one nation of thirteen sovereign states under the singular national government of the Continental Congress. The Lee Resolution clearly indicates the Continental Congress was the single General Government for the United Colonies of America before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the single General Government for the United States of America after the Declaration of Independence whom the Colonies and States had delegated their respective sovereign powers to conduct foreign diplomacy as one united nation in America.

Indeed, the Continental Congress had long before and long after the June 7, 1776 Lee Resolution been established by the Colonies and States as a General Government for their confederated union. More than a year earlier several of the colonies explicitly delegated selected powers to the Continental Congress.

A convention of delegates in Mecklenburgh County, North Carolina assembled at Charlotte, North Carolina on May 20, 1775 to approve “The Mecklenburgh Resolutions” which included a declaration of independence from Britain. The resolutions also recognized the Continental Congress as General Government of the United Colonies in the second article:

II. Resolved: That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be a sovereign and self-governing association, under the control of no power, other than that of our God and the General Government of the Congress: To the maintainance of which Independence we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual co-operation, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our most Sacred Honor.

Likewise, Resolves Adopted in Charlotte Town, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, May 31, 1775 also acknowledged the supremacy of the Continental Congress saying in the second article:

2. That the Provincial Congress of each Province, under the Direction of the Great Continental Congress, is invested with all legislative and executive Powers within their respective Provinces; and that no other Legislative or Executive does or can exist, at this time, in any of these Colonies.

New Hampshire acknowledged the supremacy of the General Government represented by the Continental Congress with the adoption of a constitution on 5 January 1776 which described New Jersey’s its legislative body as a provincial congress in relationship to the Continental Congress:

WE, the members of the Congress of New Hampshire, chosen and appointed by the free suffrages of the people of said colony, and authorized and empowered by them to meet together, and use such means and pursue such measures as we should judge best for the public good; and in particular to establish some form of government, provided that measure should be recommended by the Continental Congress: And a recommendation to that purpose having been transmitted to us from the said Congress: Have taken into our serious consideration the unhappy circumstances, into which this colony is involved by means of many grievous and oppressive acts of the British Parliament, depriving us of our natural and constitutional rights and privileges; to enforce obedience to which acts a powerful fleet and army have been sent to this country by the ministry of Great Britain, who have exercised a wanton and cruel abuse of their power, in destroying the lives and properties of the colonists in many places with fire and sword, taking the ships and lading from many of the honest and industrious inhabitants of this colony employed in commerce, agreeable to the laws and customs a long time used here.

The sudden and abrupt departure of his Excellency John Wentworth, Esq., our late Governor, and several of the Council, leaving us destitute of legislation, and no executive courts being open to punish criminal offenders; whereby the lives and properties of the honest people of this colony are liable to the machinations and evil designs of wicked men, Therefore, for the preservation of peace and good order, and for the security of the lives and properties of the inhabitants of this colony, we conceive ourselves reduced to the necessity of establishing A FORM OF GOVERNMENT to continue during the present unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain; PROTESTING and DECLARING that we neaver sought to throw off our dependence upon Great Britain, but felt ourselves happy under her protection, while we could enjoy our constitutional rights and privileges. And that we shall rejoice if such a reconciliation between us and our parent State can be effected as shall be approved by the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, in whose prudence and wisdom we confide.

South Carolina adopted its new constitution on 26 March 1776, and it said:

XV. That the delegates of this colony in the Continental Congress be chosen by the general assembly and legislative council jointly by ballot in the general assembly.

XXVIII. That the resolutions of the Continental Congress, now of force in this colony, shall so continue until altered or revoked by them.

Virginia adopted the Preamble and Resolution of the Virginia Convention, May 15, 1776, Instructing the Virginia Delegates in the Continental Congress to “Propose to that Respectable Body to Declare the United Colonies Free and Independent States”. This convention approved in part:

Forasmuch as all the endeavours of the United Colonies, by the most decent representations and petitions to the King and Parliament of Great Britain, to restore peace and security to America under the British Government, and a reunion with that people upon just and liberal terms, instead of a redress of grievances, have produced, from an imperious and vindictive Administration, increased insult, oppression, and a vigorous attempt to effect our total destruction:-By a late act all these Colonies are declared to be in rebellion, and out of the protection of the British Crown, our properties subjected to confiscation, our people, when captivated, compelled to join in the murder and plunder of their relations and countermen, and all former rapine and oppression of Americans declared legal and just; fleets and armies are raised, and the aid of foreign troops engaged to assist these destructive purposes; the King’s representative in this Colony bath not only withheld all the powers of Government from operating for our safety, but, having retired on board an armed ship, is carrying on a piratical and savage war against us, tempting our slaves by every artifice to resort to him, and training and employing them against their masters. In this state of extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those overbearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain, uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with foreign Powers for commerce and aid in war:-Wherefore, appealing to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self-preservation:

Resolved, unanimously, That the Delegates appointed to represent this Colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain; and that they give the assent of this Colony to such declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper and necessary by the Congress for forming foreign alliances, and a Confederation of the Colonies, at such time and in the manner as to them shall seem best: Provided, That the power of forming Government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each Colony, be left to the respective Colonial Legislatures.

Resolved, unanimously, That a Committee be appointed to prepare a Declaration of Rights, and such a plan of Government as will be most likely to maintain peace and order in this Colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to the people.

Then you have New Jersey adopting a new constitution on 2 July 1776 which acknowledged the Continental Congress as “the supreme council of the American colonies....”:

And whereas, In the present deplorable situation of these colonies, exposed to the fury of a cruel and relentless enemy, some form of government is absolutely necessary, not only for the preservation of good order, but also the more effectually to unite the people, and enable them to exert their whole force in their own necessary defence: and as the honorable the continental congress, the supreme council of the American colonies, has advised such of the colonies as have not yet gone into measures, to adopt for themselves, respectively, such government as shall best conduce to their own happiness and safety, and the well-being of America in general:-We, the representatives of the colony of New Jersey, having been elected by all the counties, in the freest manner, and in congress assembled, have, after mature deliberations, agreed upon a set of charter rights and the form of a Constitution, in manner following, viz.

Suffice it to note how similar acknowledgements of the supremacy of the Continental Congress as the General Government in a union of the American nation appeared again and again in the other provincial and/or state government constitutions as well.

“The colonies had united, yes, but only to fight against Great Britain, just like the allies were united against Germany.”

Your statement is a false statement, and it has every appearance as a deliberate lie given the numerous sources stating the contrary. The new constitutions being adopted before and after the adoption of the Declaration Independence by he Colonies and the new States plainly describe themselves in a number of instances as a Provincial Congress or a Provincial General Assembly in relationship to the Continental Congress. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union enumerated the powers delegated to the Continental Congress saying:

Article IX. The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, ‘well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward’: provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States — fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated — establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office — appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States — making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated ‘A Committee of the States’, and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction — to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid- like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united States in congress assembled.

The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the united States in congress assembled.

The congress of the united States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

“They were not under one government.”

You are making another false statement directly contradicted by the exact wording of the constitutions of many of the colonies and states as seen above.

“In fact, nothing shows their sovereign nature more than the fact that during the Revolutionary War, Vermont and New York had a tiff which almost resulted in Vermont declaring war on the State of New York. The tensions ran so high that Massachusetts declared her neutrality. New York passed a resolution stating that the state was prepared to “recur to force.” Vermont’s governor declared that his state did not desire to “enter into a war with the State of New York.” He also advised Confess and the other states to observe strict neutrality in the event of hostilities.”

You said: “In fact, nothing shows their sovereign nature more than the fact that during the Revolutionary War, Vermont and New York had a tiff which almost resulted in Vermont declaring war on the State of New York...Vermont’s governor declared that his state did not desire to ‘enter into a war with the State of New York.’”

That is yet another baseless lie, because Vermont was not even a State, not one of the thirteen Colonies, not anyone’s recognized colony, and not a government or jurisdiction recognized by the Continental Congress of the United Colonies or the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or anyone else. Conflicts between the insurgents styled variously as the New Hampshire Grants, New Connecticut, and the Vermont Republic versus the New Hampshire Colony/State and the New York Colony/State were a domestic American dispute over land grants made by the pre-Revolutionary War colonial governments. Accordingly, this cannot possibly qualify as an example of a conflict between two American States under the authority of the Continental Congress, because Vermont did not exist as a State in the time period.

“Another example of states exercising their sovereign rights is the case of Virginia declaring herself bound by a treaty with France that was still only being considered by Congress.”

On the contrary, Virginia did ratify the 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between the United States and France and the Treaty of Alliance in June 1779 in conformance with the authority of the national and General Government of the Continental Congress.

“And when the war was over, each state was listed as a free and independent state in the Treaty of Paris.”

You are attempting to mislead readers by omitting the fact of how the “The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783” specifically said: “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States...to be free sovereign and independent states”:

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783

Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 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.

Of course the former colonies were listed individually to define whom was being granted independence from the British Crown; that is what “viz.” means: “namely...as follows”. Throughout the rest of the treaty the “United States” and “Congress” are referenced as the parties to this treaty of peace, and not the individual States who comprise the “United States” under the authority of the [Continental] “Congress.” So, your attempt to falsely portray the treaty as treating the individual States of the “United States” as sovereign parties to this treaty apart from the national authority of the General Government of the Continental Congress is a fraud.

“About that ‘perpetual’ union. It is only mentioned in the Articles of Confederation.”

The union of the United Colonies had been established since at least 1774 by the Articles of Association or earlier. The “perpetual union” was established with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union in Article XIII. The perpetual union established by Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union in Article XIII were subsequently acknowledged and further enhanced by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United states of America which said its purpose was to “to form a more perfect Union”. The Supreme Court of the United States later concluded the union was in fact perpetual in the case of Texas vs. White:

By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[74 U.S. 700 (1869)]

“The AoC stated how the union of the states was to act and how it could be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the unanimous approval of the members of the union. When the states changed from a union under the AoC to the Union under the Constitution, it was done not by unanimous approval , but rather by approval of nine of the thirteen states of the old union.”

Wrong again, you are misrepresenting the actual words of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union which said:

And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The “congress of the united States” did agree upon the alteration of the Articles of Confederation, and no alterations disturbed the inviolability of the Articles until such time as each State ratified and confirmed those alterations in the form of the Constitution of the United States of America.

“When theses nine approved the new union, the other states were left as they were under the old union, the two unions existing simultaneously.”

You are wrong again and misrepresenting the reality that there was only one union and one national government briefly utilizing two concurrent constitutions, both of which remain in effect in U.S. Law today.

“This means that from one to four states would be under a different type of national government that the other nine. Can anyone pretend that those two groups were the same?”

We now have fifty States (not 57 States, of course) presently subject to the concurrent authority in U.S. Law of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America. So, your question is a strawman argument lacking any basis or merit.

“Remember that North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join the new union for over a year after it had been in effect among the other states. They were treated as independent states.”

No, you are making another false statement based on a strawman argument. “North Carolina and Rhode Island” were not independent states. The Continental Congress, meaning the Second Continental Congress and what historians now call the Confederation Congress, were simply described as the Continental Congress by its members. This Continental Congress has never been dissolved and theoretically may still be called into session again even today. Instead of dissolving the Continental Congress, the last session of the Continental Congress on 2 March 1789 was adjourned sine die, meaning adjourned indefinitely until called into session again. The State of North Carolina and the State of Rhode Island could have chosen to take the actions necessary to call the Continental Congress into session again in regard to the ratifications of the Constitution, but they chose not to do so and chose not to approve or disapprove of the Constitution until they ratified respectively 21 November 1789 and 29 May 1790. During the interim these two States remained members of the adjourned Continental Congress and the United States of America.

“The union of the states under the Articles was disbanded by the secession of nine states from the articles.”

Claiming “The union of the states under the Articles was disbanded by the secession of nine states from the articles.” is a lie, and it is a very stupid lie. The Continental Congress is adjourned sine die and has never been dissolved or disbanded. The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union have never been repealed, rescinded, or otherwise removed from U.S. Law. None of the States seceded due to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1887 to 1789.

“The states, in doing so, were acting as sovereign entities. They were not acting as states of the present Constitutional Union do when they ratify a constitutional amendment because such an act requires a three-fourths majority to pass, and the amendment becomes binding on all the states. Not that the act of ratifying the Constitution required the approval of each state, acting on its own, not in concert with anyone else, and that this act was binding only on the states ratifying the constitution. The two unions could be considered the same only if the second union under the Constitution had the same member states and the same form of government as the first under the Articles of Confederation. This was not the case. No one ever suggested that the other states of the union should wage war on North Carolina and Rhode Island to “save the union.” Why not? Because this was a new and different union, and each state had the right to decide for itself if and when it would become a member state.”

Your comments are so totally divorced from reality and a muddled mess of contradictions they do not deserve a response. You are inventing silly nonsense in those comments. “North Carolina and Rhode Island” and the other States did not secede from the union of the United States of America or due to the Constitution of the United States of America or the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

“The idea that to withdraw from the Union was an illegal act is based upon the false notion that the Union was to be perpetual—that in America, government was to have some form of everlasting life. Yet when we look at the first union of American colonies, we find that even though this union was styled as perpetual, it died a natural death.”

There you go again with another entirely false set of statements, conclusions, and outright lies. The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union and the Constitution of the United States are both still in effect in U.S. Law, and they do in fact deny any State the power to secede from the United States of America without first securing the approval of the Congress and the other member States of the United States of America.

“In 1643 four New England colonies formed the first union in North America, the United Colonies of New England. This union was declared to be ‘firm and perpetual.’ This union existed for more than forty years, but even though it was declared to be perpetual, it was not.”

There you go with yet another false statement and false conclusion wherein you falsely equate a union being permanent, “enduring without fundamental or marked change” (Merriam-Webster), with being perpetual, “occurring continually” (Merriam-Webster). Whereas you falsely say, “it was declared to be perpetual, it was not”; the union was actually perpetual, “occurring continually”, for a period of decades.

“Let me get this straight so that I fully understand your “concerns”: People like Ted Nugent, Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert — all Texans, shown below, widely recognized as pro-liberty Patriots — are “Fascist totalitarians”? Is that correct?”

No, that is not correct. That is just yourself acting like Germany’s Third Reich NAZIs and Stalin’s Bolshevik Communist, and American Democrat/Progressive/Communist political movements attempting to falsely coopt the icons of American republicanism such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln with their own false associations with their values.

“Why not? They were also struggling for the right of self determination. Or is self-determination a right that only applies in some cases and not in others?”

The purported Confederate States of America secessions were the exact opposite of acts of self-determination, actually being criminal acts of usurpation of the rights of the U.S. citizens.

union....noun:: a group of states or nations that are ruled by one government or that agree to work together

In the case we are discussion, the colonies fall under the second definition, I/e, that they were united by the fact that they were working together. They were not a nation with a central government. They were each sovereign states that simply sent their representatives to work together because they believed the had a greater chance of success against Britain if they fought together. IN the declaration they announced that the thirteen colonies were now free and independent states, (not the plurality), not in the aggregate as one nation but individually, yet acting jointly as may best secure for all the blessings of liberty.

I think what you are getting so confused about is that you think that all these various unions constitute the same thing. To be the same they all have to have the same government. They didn't, and some existed at the same time as others. And throughout the various changes in unions, the states remained sovereign. They were never a regular "nation." Rather they were more like the European Union, in which the various countries have delegated certain powers to the Union but have kept most to themselves. You can see this even in the passages you quoted:

"That the resolutions of the Continental Congress, now of force in this colony, shall so continue until altered or revoked by them." South Carolina was reserving the right to decide for herself what resolutions she would maintain. That is the act of a sovereign body. Virginia reiterated the fact that the colonies were looking to form a confederation, not a strong national government, and stated that she retained to herself "the power of forming Government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each Colony, be left to the respective Colonial Legislatures"

Even at the time of the Confederation state sovereignty was acknowledged. It was expressed in Article II of the Articles of Confederation and plainly stated in the Treaty of Paris. IN this treaty the King acknowledged that each of the states (which were then listed) were "sovereign and independent States." Even Hamilton acknowledged this. He wrote in the Federalist Papers that "in our case of the concurrence of thirteen sovereign wills is requisite under the Confederation to the complete execution of every important measure that proceeds from the Union." It was recognized that the United States was, in fact, not one unitary nation, but rather a republic of separate republics, or as William Rawle of Pennsylvania referred to it, a republic of republics. Even the creation of a new union under the Constitution was not meant to strip the states of their sovereignty or create one nation. In response to anti-Federalist concerns that the new constitution would create a consolidated government, Federalist Founding Father James Wilson replied that if that meant a system that "puts the thirteen United States into one, that the general government will destroy the government of the States, I will admit that such a government would not suit the people of America." And in their acts of ratification, many states specifically reserved the right to recall their delegated sovereign powers should those powers be used by the federal government to encroach upon the rights and liberties of the people. This reservation of rights is another example of the states exercising their sovereign authority, which we can see that they did not renounce by ratifying the Constitution.

About perpetuity again. If you believe that to be perpetual, a union has only to “occur continually" for a certain amount of time, and that United Colonies of New England were indeed perpetual, then the phrase in the Articles of Confederation really means nothing. You destroyed perpetuity very well there.