Let me quote from a well respected source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Confederation, Articles of, first U.S. constitution (1781-1789), which served as a bridge between the initial government by the Continental Congress of the Revolutionary period and the federal government provided under the U.S. Constitution of 1787. Because the experience of overbearing British central authority was vivid in colonial minds, the drafters of the Articles deliberately established a confederation of sovereign states."
"On paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service, to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit."
NC, you would be hard-pressed to say the Congress, under the Articles, did not represent a national government, albeit limited in scope. And, although the individual States retained a degree of sovereignty, under the Articles, they ceded some of there individual powers to the national government - the Congress. Some of these ceded powers included the appointment of foreign ministers (ambassadors), the conduct of a national Army and Navy, etc.
You might also ask yourself, "what is a federal government?" It is a government by compact, in which the members agree to subordinate some or all of their individual rights, powers, and duties to a central authority. Certainly, the government under the Atricles can rightly be described as a federal government of decidely weak central authority.
Please note also, the Articles of Confederation predate the Treaty of Paris by over a year. The British, fearful of the growth of an impending power in the Western Hemisphere (the United States), were not above a little trouble-making to create dis-unity in the new nation. Nevertheless, one of the three treaties was signed between Britain and the United States, not between Britain and 13 individual States. The four American signatories represented the "United States."
With regard to your spurious arguments concerning the the inclusion of some States into the Union, you stated, "George Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Perhaps you could explain how the country remained the same from April 30, 1789 to May 29, 1790?" Since April 30, 1789, thirty-nine States have ratified the Constitution (of 1787). Did the country change with every new State? Yes, by way of boundaries, representation in Congress, and so on. But the institutions of government remained. The transition form government under the Articles to government under the Constitution was more or less seemless. That some individual States were hesitant to enter into the new form of government is not surprising. The United States existed in 1776; it existed in 1781; it existed in 1783; it existed in 1787, and; it existed in 1789. It continues to exist today. That is what I mean by the country did not change.
As a matter of fact, from your post 1441, in the third paragraph from the Rhode Island letter, is a very revealing statement. The Governor wrote, "Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity?"
The meaning of the last sentence is clear. Rhode Island wanted to see how the new government worked before they adopted it for "themselves and their posterity." That sounds to me as if the Governor of Rhode Island realized his State's commitment was to a "perpetual union."
What is a brain? A brain is an organ. Dogs have organs. Cats have organs. Churches have organs. Your brain is acting as a church organ, playing notes by blowing a lot of air.
[CapnR] "On paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service, to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit."
On paper, the Executive Department and the Judicial Department did not exist. In reality, they did not exist either.
[CapnR] NC, you would be hard-pressed to say the Congress, under the Articles, did not represent a national government, albeit limited in scope.
No problem. It was a FEDERAL government.
[CapnR] And, although the individual States retained a degree of sovereignty, under the Articles, they ceded some of there individual powers to the national government - the Congress. Some of these ceded powers included the appointment of foreign ministers (ambassadors), the conduct of a national Army and Navy, etc.
They were explicitly recognized as SOVEREIGN STATES. The Congress of the United States had no power to force any of the individual states to do anything.
[CapnR] You might also ask yourself, "what is a federal government?" It is a government by compact, in which the members agree to subordinate some or all of their individual rights, powers, and duties to a central authority.
NO.
[CapnR] Certainly, the government under the Atricles can rightly be described as a federal government of decidely weak central authority.
You are getting there, slow but sure.
[CapnR] Please note also, the Articles of Confederation predate the Treaty of Paris by over a year. The British, fearful of the growth of an impending power in the Western Hemisphere (the United States), were not above a little trouble-making to create dis-unity in the new nation. Nevertheless, one of the three treaties was signed between Britain and the United States, not between Britain and 13 individual States. The four American signatories represented the "United States."
All thirteen of the sovereign and independent states known as the United States. If the European Community chose to change its name tomorrow to The United States of Europe, France would still be France, and liberal actors would still have a place to go when they say they are leaving the USA.
[CapnR] With regard to your spurious arguments concerning the the inclusion of some States into the Union, you stated, "George Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Perhaps you could explain how the country remained the same from April 30, 1789 to May 29, 1790?" Since April 30, 1789, thirty-nine States have ratified the Constitution (of 1787). Did the country change with every new State? Yes, by way of boundaries, representation in Congress, and so on. But the institutions of government remained. The transition form government under the Articles to government under the Constitution was more or less seemless. That some individual States were hesitant to enter into the new form of government is not surprising. The United States existed in 1776; it existed in 1781; it existed in 1783; it existed in 1787, and; it existed in 1789. It continues to exist today. That is what I mean by the country did not change.
INCLUSION?????
What Lincolnian, Clintonian gobbledygook.
The United States went from 13 states to 11 states. Two former states somehow were no longer in the Union. Did those two states secede? Did the other eleven states secede? Or is there some mystical explanation?
[CapnR] As a matter of fact, from your post 1441, in the third paragraph from the Rhode Island letter, is a very revealing statement. The Governor wrote, "Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity?"
[CapnR] The meaning of the last sentence is clear. Rhode Island wanted to see how the new government worked before they adopted it for "themselves and their posterity." That sounds to me as if the Governor of Rhode Island realized his State's commitment was to a "perpetual union."
They had already been in a so-called perpetual union, past tense, with the eleven states that divorced themselves from that so-called perpetual union. As they were no longer united, it was not all that perpetual.