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