I'll take that as sarcasm, but in the context of Trice claiming that secession only applies to situations where a reduced union is left behind -- I think that's a lousy definition for our purposes here or even in general, but those are apparently the kind of semantics arguments that are being made -- whether a union was left behind by the "seceding" states or not and therefore whether there was really a "secession" according to whatever definitions unionblue and Trice want to use is irrelevant to the question of whether an "indissoluble" union can be broken up/reduced/pick-whatever-word-you-want-to-use-for-what-happened-in-1788 according to Washington and Hamilton's use of the term (assuming they both meant to use the word the same way.)
This is what I said:
"Here is a definition of what I think you are claiming occurred: "In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form." None of that indicates "secession" took place in 1788."
That definition is not mine. It comes from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy and is a fairly concise and standard description of how the type of secession "the South" tried in 1860-61 would be considered in political philosophy today. Here is the complete paragraph it came from:
It is useful to distinguish secession from other ways in which “separation” or “state-breaking” can occur. In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form. Second, there is irredentist secession, wherein the attempt is not to create a new state, but to merge the seceding territory with a neighboring state. This typically occurs when the majority in the seceding area are of the same ethno-national as that which is predominant in the neighboring state. A third case, exemplified by the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, occurs when there is agreement between the populations or at least the leaders of two regions (which together comprise the whole territory of the state), to split the state into two new states. A fourth case is that of externally-imposed partition of an existing state into two or more new states. In the past partition usually occurred when a deal was struck between two powerful neighboring states at the expense of the state that was partitioned, as with the partitioning of Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At present, externally-imposed partition is more likely to be considered as a last resort for dealing with intractable ethno-national conflict within a state. In what follows, the focus is on secession in the classical sense, but with some attention also to irredentist secession.
If anyone is interested in more detail on that topic, you can find the
complete Secession article it is taken from here. That is a nice compact description in the Stanford work, but it does point to a lot of further reading for anyone interested in really delving into the topic. Fair warning: if you are not particularly interested in things like the Philosophy of Law it is pretty dense and will require effort to get through.
The problem you have is that the Union of the United States of America
was not broken up in 1788 as you claim and you have provided
no actual evidence to support your claim that it was. The Supreme Court has held the same ever since the Constitution was adopted. None of the Original Thirteen
ever declared they were seceding. None of the Original Thirteen were
ever thrown out by the others.
Added later: Some people might like to look at the Stanford article for reference in discussing the attempt of "the South" in 1860-61. The article does a quick run-through of the different
Theories of the Right to Secede in section 2 (six general categories). It also gets into
Secession and Just War Theory in section 3 followed by
Secession and the Philosophy of International Law in section 4.
