I think the founders would have liked to keep the union intact, but as
you note, experience and history suggested it might not be possible. 
The provision that the Constitution would become operational upon the
ratification of nine states rather than waiting for complete unanimity
(as they did with the Articles of Conf.) could be read as such an
admission that some states might not go along.  Or the nine state
provision might be simply to make sure the new government went into
operation sooner rather than later, and could not be held up by one
state--as Maryland did until 1781 with the Articles.  Rhode Island
refused even to debate ratification of the Constitution until after
George Washington's term had already started!

>  I always thought it was a telling choice on the
> part of the founders to depart from the assertion made in the Articles
> of Confederation which aimed at a "perpetual union" -- the founders
were
> content to aspire merely to a "more perfect union."


I actually read that line quite differently, but for precisely the same
reason. I read the "more perfect" Union as a step up from simply
"perpetual;" I understand the Preamble to mean that it is still a
perpetual
Union, simply a better one. Given the context of the possibility of the
Union -- such as it was -- splintering into smaller, regional
confederacies,
and the desire in the Annapolis-to-Philadelphia process to prevent that,
why
would the "perpetual" have been assumed to be dropped by these men?

Anthony Santoro



David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html