Talk:Perpetual Union

Untitled

This entire article seems dedicated to advancing a particular, controversial point of view with respect to the "perpetual union" of the United States. Perhaps include alternative viewpoints?--24.218.231.57 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What statements specifically do you consider to be the problem? It seems pretty clear that the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union established it as stated. In addition the specific section you have tagged seems uncontroversial as it is an historical account of the American War of Independence. I am removing the POV tag for now pending further information as to what you perceive to be the problem. I am not disputing your allegation at this stage, but we need more information before it can even be considered. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

I concur that the article as written seems to be pushing the view that the Union is indeed "perpetual" in that it (i.e., the article) refutes arguments to the contrary and ignores indications of state sovereignty. Maybe the Union is perpetual and certainly people like Hamilton and Madison wanted it to be (the title of the Articles of Confederation alone, along with Article XIII testify to this on their face), but given a great many arguments by the founders and later generations that the Union _isn't_ perpetual and wasn't intended to be--along with Article II, which notes that states retain their sovereignty--it shouldn't be stated as a fact with only its advantages celebrated. 4 March 2017

I also concur because the idea of the "perpetual union" is actually not found anywhere in the US Constitution itself. In fact the document no where specifically prohibits states from leaving the Union nor does it impose a mandatory "perpetual union". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:B5F8:DC25:CB33:B800 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of Perpetual

I once added an edit that has been deleted at some point where one scholar contends that the phrase "perpetual union" does not actually mean that secession was illegal, but rather that in the 1700s virtually every treaty was purported to be "perpetual," meaning simply that there was no planned termination. In the case of the United States, this means that the Union would last until further notice, therefore secession was not necessarily illegal. Can I re-add this comment? Emperor001 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source and citation reference for such a comment, per Wikipedia policy. The claim seems somewhat suspect, since in a 1532 French treaty, the term "perpetual" was taken to mean "permanent", which is its meaning today as well. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Perpetual Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/conventional-wisdom.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported attribution - far too weak

I boldly reworded the lede to add an unsupported attribution template . The Supreme Court wrote only, "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." (sdsds - talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note also the Supreme Court decision was considerably after the fact. (sdsds - talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Perhaps lacking an attribution for who it was that deemed the Articles of Confederation too weak, we could simply end the lede with, "[...] the Articles provided a system of government superseded in 1789 by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, [...]" That would serve the goal stated in your edit comment of "brevity" and would allow the question of weakness to be addressed elsewhere, either in this article or another. (sdsds - talk) 05:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me but others may object and want the descriptor in the first mention. If I may, will ping Rjensen, Allreet, and Gwillhickers. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated — thanks! (sdsds - talk) 05:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It was considered too weak by nationalists like George Washington. So I added that point. "During the mid1780s these would evolve into recognizable nationalist and antinationalist factions, with the former favoring a strong central government within a federal system...." and "Washington was the leading nationalist" (from Edward J. Larson, George Washington, Nationalist (University of Virginia Press, 2016) online Rjensen (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Rjensen's last edits make the grade in terms of satisfying the 'by whom?' contention. Washington was among the strongest voices criticizing the short comings of the Articles, starting at Valley Forge where many states were reluctant to, and did not provide any funding to the Continental Army who was in dire need of supplies for most, if not all of the war. The Articles also did not have the authority to call forth state militias. As such, the so called Union was something of a paper title at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Thanks much for improving the article! (sdsds - talk) 08:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

CAESAR•DICT PERPETVO lettering

The anon whose edit was reverted might actually have been correct, and our cited source may be incorrect. See e.g. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces66663.html and many others at https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=rome_section&r=Perpetuo&ct=coin for reference. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 10:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)