Does anyone think it went all down hill after this was thrown aside illegally? Then the Constitution was somehow magically the new rule of the land. After the civil war, Texas vs White case decided that the Constitution does not allow states to secede because the union is "perpetual". But the Constitution never says that, that wording is from the Articles of Confederation which I thought they tried to sweep away and never talk about again. Chief Justice Salmon Chase giving remarks about the case. >>The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, 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?[7] So if we can pick and choose pieces of the Articles of Confederation to say states cannot secede, meaning we are all stuck with each other forever cause the government is never going to vote to give up land. Why are all the other pieces of the Articles of Confederation not considered law? Nobody ever talks about this seemingly important piece of history. Most people I talk to don't even know the Constitution was not the original governing document. Just to pick one Article IX states >>The united states, in congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective state What does poal think?