Actually, it's you who didn't bother to read my post. If you had, you'd seen that my true statement about how the geographical borders of the states were almost exactly those set down by the British, was followed by this: "there's obviously more to a state than people, borders, and a British governor. One must also consider culture, econonmy, and methods of government."
If you prefer a definition that must ultimately be derived from the authority of the British monarchy and ‘the divine right of kings,’ you are certainly welcome to it.
No point in responding except to note that you apparently were not reading for comprehension before you responded.
In any case, your reference to “something more than paper and ink” as a basis for a political union certainly qualifies you for the term ‘mystic’...
Oh, please. You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim that the sole basis of Union is the paper and ink upon which the Constitution or Articles were written. Nor can you plausibly argue that the bonds of Union were created only after the documents were signed. I can think of only only one reason that you would even pretend to hold such an opinion: to admit that the basic roots of Union preceded the creation of the documents, would be to concede that the states did not consider themselves to be as sovereign as you'd have them be.
For creation of the Union, there is only one possible order: the need, desire, and basic agreement to form a Union came even before the formation of a Convention to draw up the rules for its operation. And the documents themselves obviously come only after long months of debate and many votes and compromises. The Union itself long preceded the documentation laying out how that union would operate.
Including your claim that “the states considered themselves to be bound together by something more than paper and ink?” If so, why bother with written compacts?
Well, the primary reason they wanted a written compact is because the British Constitution was not written down -- a fact that allowed the British to inflict some serious judicial abuses on the Colonies. The historical fact of an unwritten British constitution poses a rather large problem for you, as it clearly demonstrates that documents are not requirements for a union; instead, it is the spirit behind the creation of those documents that matters.
If so, then why did the terms of the compacts contradict each other? If so, why was unanimous agreement required to alter the first compact, but the agreement of only nine States proved sufficient to establish the second?
Good heavens, man! Won't you please read Federalist 40 (to which I've twice linked, once specifically for your benefit)? Read the document, and see what Madison had to say about it. He answers the questions in full.
As to your quotes, they once again fail to make your case, but are rather helpful to mine.
It had become evident that the circumstances of the country were greatly altered, and the ground of the present debate changed. The Confederation, he said, was now dissolved.”
Read this carefully. Indeed, the government defined by the Articles was dissolved. But look at this: the circumstances of the country were greatly altered. That word "country" is important -- it means that Union was not dissolved, and that New Hampshire's ratification simply changed the nature of the government under which the Union operated. Note also that Livingston clearly believed that the Confederation was still operative up to the moment of NH's decision to ratify.
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
All this really says is that there are "states," and there is "the union." State by state ratification was required, of course, but that says nothing about the circumstances of the Union itself, other than to recognize that it was a union of states, and not people. (Once again, see Federalist 40.)
Sovereignty of each of the states was recognized as the end result of freedom from the Crown as was so noted in all of the early state constitutions, Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation...”
Which is all well and good, except that it brushes aside the fact that those "sovereign states" nevertheless formed a Congress to draft the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. They were a group of men elected and empowered to act on behalf of the colonies/states as a group -- a UNION -- even before the Revolution. In case you missed it, Congress is a manifestation of Union -- if it were not, there would be no need or desire to form such a body, and the decisions of such a body would be without meaning.
At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly ‘more perfect union,’ the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation....
Well, the wording itself marks this as a partisanscreed, a conclusion that is reinforced by this: but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete.
But aside from that, the quote you've provided implicitly acknowledges the existence of a Union even in colonial times. Those "precedents" were for states and groups acting against (you guessed it) the Union.
Did you suggest that “’the states’ were created by the British” – or did you not? Is that your belief, or is it not? As for “culture, econonmy, and methods of government:” are you actually suggesting that such factors were uniform throughout the States? What degree of uniformity of “culture, econonmy, and methods of government" is sufficient to produce a “union," as you understand the term? Please be specific: your continual semantic ‘hand waving’ is of benefit only to you.
No point in responding except to note that you apparently were not reading for comprehension before you responded.
And apparently you ‘were not thinking for comprehension’ when you chose to ignore the fact that the British government (which you cite as the original ‘creator’ of the States) was monarchical in nature.
Oh, please. You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim that the sole basis of Union is the paper and ink upon which the Constitution or Articles were written.
I merely suggest that written law is a necessary requirement for a free society, specifically including our union of States. “You cannot possibly be so dense as to” suggest otherwise, can you?
Nor can you plausibly argue that the bonds of Union were created only after the documents were signed.
“Bonds of Union?” Your use of the phrase seems to preclude any political content. Perhaps you would care to address the failure of “the bonds of Union” described in The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England? Or the rejection of “the bonds of Union” proposed in William Penn’s Plan of Union, and Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union? Or will you insist that political considerations are irrelevant to your definition of “union?”
I can think of only only one reason that you would even pretend to hold such an opinion: to admit that the basic roots of Union preceded the creation of the documents, would be to concede that the states did not consider themselves to be as sovereign as you'd have them be.
And “I can think of only...one reason that you would even pretend” that your amorphous “bonds of Union” must exclude (or devalue to the point of irrelevancy) written political compacts: such written compacts provide no support for your arguments.
For creation of the Union, there is only one possible order: the need, desire, and basic agreement to form a Union came even before the formation of a Convention to draw up the rules for its operation. And the documents themselves obviously come only after long months of debate and many votes and compromises. The Union itself long preceded the documentation laying out how that union would operate.
“Long preceded?” How long, precisely? Are you absolutely certain that “need” is necessary – or would “desire” and “agreement” be sufficient? What of “need” and “agreement” in the absence of “desire?” Is “agreement” necessary – and if so, how do you define it? Your statements are disgustingly ambiguous – no doubt in keeping with your definition of “union.”
Well, the primary reason they wanted a written compact is because the British Constitution was not written down -- a fact that allowed the British to inflict some serious judicial abuses on the Colonies. The historical fact of an unwritten British constitution poses a rather large problem for you, as it clearly demonstrates that documents are not requirements for a union...
"Good heavens, man! You cannot possibly be so dense as to claim” that the British government constituted the same type of “union” established between the American States, can you? As John Taylor noted:
The word union is inexplicit. It may imply either a perfect consolidation; or an association for special purposes, reaching only stated objects, and limited by positive restrictions... The union of England and Scotland, effected by compact, contains stipulations beyond the power of the united government to alter, especially that in relation to the religion of the latter kingdom. That between England and Ireland is a political consolidation. The latter kingdom did not obtain an establishment of the Roman Catholick religion. Had the majority of the people possessed free will, they would have reserved this local right; and the Roman Catholick religion, like the Presbyterian, would have been placed beyond the reach of the united representation in parliament; just as the reserved rights of the states are placed beyond the reach of our united representation in Congress; because political unions for special purposes, cannot be defeated by inferences from the form adopted for their execution. In order to determine whether the United States meant by the term union, to establish a supreme power or a limited association, we must commence our inquiry at their political birth, and accommodate our arguments with the principles they avowed in proclaiming their political existence. These are stated in the declaration of independence: "We the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things, which independent states may of right do." Such is the origin of our liberty, and the foundation of our form of government. The consolidating project ingeniously leaves unexamined the arguments suggested by this declaration, and commences its lectures at the end of the subject to be considered. If the declaration of independence is not obligatory, our intire political fabrick has lost its magna charta, and is without any solid foundation. But if it is the basis of our form of government, it is the true expositor of the principles and terms we have adopted.
“Read the documents:” your analogy is completely inapplicable.
...it is the spirit behind the creation of those documents that matters.
“The spirit behind the creation?” Care to define that “spirit” - in writing? Hmm? See if you can do it without reference to political “union,” something which seems to be excluded from your definition of the term. (“Spirit?”And you deny you are a mystic. How nice.)
Good heavens, man! Won't you please read Federalist 40 (to which I've twice linked, once specifically for your benefit)? Read the document, and see what Madison had to say about it. He answers the questions in full.
I have “read the document,” and many others: your use of the words “State” and “union” seem to conflict with Mr. Madison’s use of those same terms. You have suggested in the past that the States were somehow formed by the “union.” Perhaps you should have continued on to Federalist No. 43:
A compact between independent sovereigns [i.e., the Articles of Confederation], founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it difficult to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted?
Here we see Mr. Madison suggesting that “these delicate truths” justify “a dissolution of the federal pact” between “independent sovereigns.” Tell us: how can “independent sovereigns” be created by a non-sovereign – your amorphous and still-undefined “union?” And there’s another reference to “dissolution,” as well, which would pose “a rather large problem for you” – if your definition of “union” resembled in any way that used by Mr. Madison. Specifically:
“...(N)o political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncanceled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”
Note the reference to “the moral relations [that] will remain uncancelled.” It is difficult to ascertain from your nauseatingly vague use of the term, but one might guess that you include such “moral relations” as a basis for “union.” Next, please note Mr. Madison’s use of the specific term “reunion” in reference to his comment that “no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States.” Tell us: if, as you insist, the “dissenting” States remained within the “union,” how on earth could there be a “reunion” with those same States? Hmm? It is quite obvious that your use of the word “union” fails to coincide with that of Mr. Madison.
As to your quotes, they once again fail to make your case, but are rather helpful to mine.
Actually, the quotes I provided highlight your absolute dependence upon a definition of the term “union" that apparently excludes any serious real connotations. How else can you possibly suggest that a political "union" that is “dissolved” may somehow continue to live on past its own dissolution?
Read this carefully. Indeed, the government defined by the Articles was dissolved. But look at this: the circumstances of the country were greatly altered. That word "country" is important -- it means that Union was not dissolved, and that New Hampshire's ratification simply changed the nature of the government under which the Union operated. Note also that Livingston clearly believed that the Confederation was still operative up to the moment of NH's decision to ratify.
“Read this carefully:”
”That the following articles, agreed upon by the freemen of this State, now met in general assembly, be deemed and held the constitution and form of government of the said State, unless altered by the legislative authority thereof, which constitution or form of government shall immediately take place and be in force from the passing of this act, excepting such parts as are hereafter mentioned and specified.
I. That the style of this country be hereafter the State of South Carolina.”
Now, you may claim that the “word ‘country’ is important” because you believe it necessarily refers to the “union” (and only you and God know what you mean by that term), but there were quite obviously exceptions to your beliefs. Here we see the term "country" used to describe a single, sovereign, independent State. Perhaps you can tell us how the “union” formed the State of South Carolina: the “freemen” thereof would seem to have disagreed with you – in writing. Shall we pull up the constitutions of the other independent and sovereign States as well? How many of the State constitutions will we find that cite the “union” as the source of the State’s sovereignty? Give us an estimate – plus or minus 2 States.
;>)
As a footnote, your statement (“the government defined by the Articles was dissolved [but the] Union was not dissolved”) effectively confirms that your use of the term “union” has no required political connotations whatsoever. Lest you forget, I will remind you that such a unique interpretation is completely at odds with Mr. Madison’s statements in Federalist No. 43.
WIJG: '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'
r9: All this really says is that there are "states," and there is "the union."
Yet another assumption on your part. Mr. Madison’s references to union, as noted above, contain distinct political connotations (“...if, as you insist, the ‘dissenting’ States remained within the ‘union,’ how on earth could there be a ‘reunion’ with those same States?”). Your use of the term apparently involves no important political connotations whatsoever. Put simply (for your benefit), you are comparing ‘apples’ with ‘non-apples.’
State by state ratification was required, of course, but that says nothing about the circumstances of the Union itself, other than to recognize that it was a union of states, and not people.
“Of course.” And once again you confirm that your use of the term “union” involves no important political aspects whatsoever.
Which is all well and good, except that it brushes aside the fact that those "sovereign states" nevertheless formed a Congress to draft the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. They were a group of men elected and empowered to act on behalf of the colonies/states as a group -- a UNION -- even before the Revolution. In case you missed it, Congress is a manifestation of Union -- if it were not, there would be no need or desire to form such a body, and the decisions of such a body would be without meaning.
“In case you missed it,” my ignorant friend, “Congress” did not “draft the... Constitution.” No doubt a minor point for you, given your apparent disdain for written political agreements. And once again you confirm that your ‘apolitical’ definition of the term “union” is completely at odds with common usage.
But aside from that, the quote you've provided implicitly acknowledges the existence of a Union even in colonial times. Those "precedents" were for states and groups acting against (you guessed it) the Union.
“(A)cting against...the Union?” To which “union” are you referring? The self-described “perpetual” political “union” formed under the terms of The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England – which ceased to exist after a few decades? Or to your own unique (and – “you guessed it” - conveniently vague) concept of “union?”
Perhaps you should provide written definitions of the terms you have been using. As I noted previously, your use of the term “State” appeared to conflict with Mr. Madison’s understanding of the term, and it has become painfully apparent that your use of the word “union” is entirely at odds with common usage of the term in political discourse.
But all is not lost - your understanding of the terms would be highly appropriate in a discussion of the current “union” between the “State” of ‘Aztlan’ and the Federal Republic of Mexico...
;>)