I retired from the Navy nineteen years ago, but maybe you're that much older than me and can rightly call me 'kid'. That's fine - I have no intentions of growing up anyway. I'd much rather stay young at heart.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln said:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."


In 1869, the opinion of SCOTUS in "Texas vs. White" was:

"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?"


The Constitution did replace the Articles of Confederation, but nowhere does it in any way nullify the concept of "perpetual union". The fact that you want to believe it did doesn't make it so.

Furthermore, note that you're castigating me for being judgmental, but it was the sitting president and the SCOTUS of the 1860's - no more than 70 years after the Constitutional Convention - who made these statements.

In your response, you tried to present yourself as someone who knows better than I about the mindset and intentions of those who lived during the 1860's. Thank you, but I'll take the word of those who actually lived during that time.

Retired Navy. Inveterate contrarian. If I haven’t done it, I’ve usually done something close.

Retired Navy. Inveterate contrarian. If I haven’t done it, I’ve usually done something close.