The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the two unions were distinct and separate entities. The first union, formed under the Articles of Confederation, consisted of 13 member States, and the unanimous agreement of all 13 States was required to modify the terms of the Articles. That unanimity of agreement was not achieved until May 29, 1790. The second union , formed under the Constitution, was established upon the mutual agreement of only 9 States – which occurred June 21, 1788. Note the difference in dates: the initial establishment of the second union violated the specific terms of the first. Furthermore, one of the 13 States in the first union was not even represented at the convention which produced the second compact. Several of the States existed as independent countries outside of the second union for extended periods of time before they eventually ratified the Constitution – and that ratification was by no means guaranteed. The fact that all 13 States were at different times members of both unions no more suggests “continuity” than Ronald Reagan’s membership in the D*mocrat Party, followed by his membership in the Republican Party, suggests “continuity” between those two parties.
While (as you've noted) the rules governing the operation of the union were what changed, the Union of states for which those rules were made, was the same.
Utter nonsense. Several of the non-ratifying States (including New York and North Carolina) considered forming their own confederation – and there was nothing the constitutional union could have done to prevent it, apart from declaring war. Rhode Island existed as an independent country for nearly two years before belatedly ratifying the Constitution. During that time, Rhode Island was not bound by any of the terms of the Constitution – while each of the ratifying States were bound by all of them. Are you suggesting that Rhode Island nevertheless was a member of the union at that time?
"The Union" created the states, in the sense that the Constitutional Convention, acting as a congress of representatives from the Union of states, created the constitution.
The convention delegates were not “representatives from the Union of states” – the delegates from each State represented that State alone. One State was not even represented. And because the new Constitution was ratified by the States, each acting (in James Madison’s words) “as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act,” it would be ridiculous to suggest that "'the Union” created the states.”
With therapy and psychotropic drugs you may yet be capable of rejoining those of us who inhabit the real world.... ;-
I hate to put a dent in your “real world,” but perhaps you should read An Analysis of President Lincoln’s Legal Arguments Against Secession before you recommend “therapy and psychotropic drugs” for anyone.
If you choose to respond, please do so with historical fact...
;>)
No they weren't. You're mistaking the marriage vows for the marriage. The Articles and the Constitution merely formalized the fact that the states (or more precisely, the people in them) considered themselves to be bound together by something more than paper and ink.
The first union, formed under the Articles of Confederation, consisted of 13 member States, and the unanimous agreement of all 13 States was required to modify the terms of the Articles. That unanimity of agreement was not achieved until May 29, 1790. The second union , formed under the Constitution, was established upon the mutual agreement of only 9 States – which occurred June 21, 1788.
On this point I offer up the words of James Madison, in Federalist 40: In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation [of the legislatures] of all the states, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed [by the people,] and may be carried into effect by nine States only. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a majority of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.
Note the difference in dates: the initial establishment of the second union violated the specific terms of the first.
The primary reason for Federalist 40 is to address that point.
Furthermore, one of the 13 States in the first union was not even represented at the convention which produced the second compact.
That state did, nevertheless, decide to ratify. The stubborn independence of some was not sufficient to dissuade those who wanted to remain part of the Union.
Several of the States existed as independent countries outside of the second union for extended periods of time before they eventually ratified the Constitution – and that ratification was by no means guaranteed.
But it did occur, and was eventually unanimous. But here again, you mistake the marriage vows for the marriage. The basic question for ratification was not whether the states wanted to join a Union, but whether they wanted to remain part of the Union under the new Constitution.
The fact that all 13 States were at different times members of both unions no more suggests “continuity” than Ronald Reagan’s membership in the D*mocrat Party, followed by his membership in the Republican Party, suggests “continuity” between those two parties.
Sigh. You're once again focusing on the vows. The Union was not changed, which is no surprise, given that its defining characteristic was a desire by the states to stick together in some manner. The presumptive difference between the "old" and "new" unions was little more than the paper that governed the relations between states and Union.
The convention delegates were not “representatives from the Union of states” – the delegates from each State represented that State alone.
Well of course they represented each state. However, they were assembled in Congress, and in the development and voting on the final form of the Constitution they agreed to be bound by the results of non-unanimous votes. They passed out of their convention a product that was developed by representatives of all the states, for ratification by all the states. This is not merely an act of individuals representing individual states, it is also an act of individuals acting as part of a Union.
And because the new Constitution was ratified by the States, each acting (in James Madison’s words) “as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act,” it would be ridiculous to suggest that "'the Union” created the states.”
This has already been addressed and dismissed. In a nutshell, it is ludicrous to ask a state to ratify or reject a Constitution if it does not really have the right to do so. Only by treating each state as sovereign can ratification have meaning.
This has no bearing on the existence of the Union itself. Ratification was a vote to remain in Union. Failure to ratify could only have meant a divorce -- a decision to leave the Union.
At this point it is necessary to consider exactly what is meant by "state," something which you seem to have taken for granted up to now. However, for your position on states vs. Union to have any logical consistency, you are required to hold the position that the states always existed as sovereign and independent entities. This is obviously incorrect.
In point of fact, "the states" were created by the British.
The British defined the states as specific areas of land with certain geographical borders. People who lived within those borders were under the authority of the British governor.
However, there's obviously more to a state than people, borders, and a British governor. One must also consider culture, econonmy, and methods of government.
Herein lie the true roots of the Union, in that the various colonies, and later states, had common interests and goals in these regards. As it happens, the foundations of the Union were formed relatively early in the Colonial period, and thus long predated the States, which after the Revolution replaced the British government with governments of their own, but which pretty much kept the British borders.
Getting back to the Constitution, it is well worth noting that the same Congress (and many of the same men) who represented the Union of rebellious colonies (which were not yet states!), created the Articles of Confederation, defining how that Union would operate after the Revolution. And when the Articles proved unworkable, those same men, "in order to form a more perfect Union," replaced the Articles with the Constitution.
The Constitution defined the political limitations not only of the Union, but also of the states. In these ways, the Union did indeed create the states.