[justshutupandtakeit]

States were created by the authorization of the Second Continental Congress. They never existed outside that authorization. The weak, though perpetual, Union formed by the Articles was made "more perfect" by the constitution. The American "Union" is only composed of states and other affliation is as a possession, or holding in trust BY that Union. Territories, such as Louisiana, were not IN the Union but were possessions OF the Union.

Jefferson was right that the Union should not rule over those territories and their inhabitants like an Empire. But the idea of them becoming a separate Nation did not mean they would be allowed to separate from the Union (should they join by becoming states) unilaterally by attacking US installations.

No, his argument attempts to confuse separation from the Union and a potential scenario where the territories are allowed to go their own way having never been in the Union.

Legal separation is only possible when it is allowed by the Law of the Land. Our constitution is not and never was like an Isamic marriage contract for a man and just saying "I divorce thee" three times ends it. Only by a constitutional amendment could a state legally leave the Union. There can be no change in the constitution without an amendment of it. It defines the Union and ways of adding to it.

A "state" in the constitution is what is created when a TERRITORY is admitted by Congress into the Union. Only states are guaranteed a republican form of government. "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;..." See how the Louisiana territory was governed as an example of non-republican government.

There were no conditional ratifications though anti-Federalist tried that tack. Only Yes or No was accepted and no conditions were allowed (check Madison's correspondence with H during the NY CC when he told H not to accept a conditional ratification, which H was about ready to do.) Americans considered themselves one people from the early 1770s. They didn't form a "perpetual" Union in the belief that it was a will-o-the-wisp dissolvable on a whim. None of the Founders believed that. Possible beliefs of nameless Men in the Street are of little interest to me.

[Gianni]

States were created by the authorization of the Second Continental Congress. They never existed outside that authorization.

Are you even serious? I admit that my knowledge here is pathetically weak, but I do know of the existence of thirteen colonies which declared their independence to spark the revolution. Upon winning their independence, were they not 'states'? Then who formed the second CC? Where were the representatives from? I admit I don't know, but I suspect there were representatives from each 'state.'

The weak, though perpetual, Union formed by the Articles was made "more perfect" by the constitution.

Perpetual doesn't mean the same in legalese that you're saying it does. "More perfect" seems subject to interpretation, so why change it? In the eyes of the anti-federalists, 'more perfect' would mean something that contrasts with Hamilton's 'more perfect' would it not?

Jefferson was right that the Union should not rule over those territories and their inhabitants like an Empire. But the idea of them becoming a separate Nation did not mean they would be allowed to separate from the Union (should they join by becoming states) unilaterally by attacking US installations.

Nowhere does J mention attacking US installations. Nor have we discussed it previously. Is this something new that we're introducing to cloud the original debate?

No, his argument attempts to confuse separation from the Union and a potential scenario where the territories are allowed to go their own way having never been in the Union.

Stating this as axiomatic does not necessarily make it true. J's words do not make it obvious that they are never to be states, only that if the people (our sons) wished to depart, they should be left in peace. Would J think that territories have 'more rights' than states? No, and his comments regard the subjugation of any territorial or state government to the will of the people therein.

Legal separation is only possible when it is allowed by the Law of the Land. Our constitution is not and never was like an Isamic marriage contract for a man and just saying "I divorce thee" three times ends it.

I can only assume you're bringing up the radical and dislikable aspect of Islam in a weak attempt to gain support from those who are fervently anti-islamic?

Only by a constitutional amendment could a state legally leave the Union. There can be no change in the constitution without an amendment of it. It defines the Union and ways of adding to it.

But not ways of leaving it, correct? Once again you claim the constitution says more than its words. Fine. Point out the section which would be amended such that a state could leave. Maybe the clause that says, "Anyone who tries to leave the United States shall be hunted down, beaten, burned, and killed. Their damned rebel families, too."

The constitution is a document of enumerated powers amongst which coersion of the states into Union is not one. It has been made policy through force of arms, and the rediculous attempts to justify it after the fact are moot. We are united today not for common purpose or common benefit, but because the inability to quell the Leviathan which we've wrought.

A "state" in the constitution is what is created when a TERRITORY is admitted by Congress into the Union.

Not necessarily, Texas, for instance.

Only states are guaranteed a republican form of government.

I've wondered in the past whether or not this phrase has been twisted back onto the states. Was the original intent of this phrase to insure that each state was properly represented in the federal government, or that each state within itself have a republican government? Perhaps someone familiar with the constitutional debates can enlighten us both.

"Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;..." See how the Louisiana territory was governed as an example of non-republican government.

K, so? What he said was that 'our sons' who are to live in the territories and the states alike, should they see fit to separate, may do so peacefully. Your insistance that 'our sons,' should they choose to live in two different states cannot. One must either move to a territory or be killed to maintain some idiotic notion of Union that didn't exist in Jefferson's time. Great.

Possible beliefs of nameless Men in the Street are of little interest to me.

As with any armchair tyrant.