Ah you have followed the trail. In a sense yes. There was a case: Respublica v Sweers that suggests that the former British Colonies had formed (established) a body corporate upon their association (say 1774) (aka the United Colonies)--note that "formed a body corporate" does not necessarily mean "became a body corporate". There is actual a Congressional discussion of "United" vs "united" --"United" being limited and "united" being more "actual" uniting. It is best grasped in the sense of joint venture. In that if you and nine other people got together to mine gold, that joint venture called "United Gold Miners" is kind of a management company for the joint venture. Anything and everything (by contract) that you ten do jointly or "United" together would be a "United Gold Miners" matter. "United Gold Miners" could be in one sense a reference to you ten, it could also be a singularity in and of itself. Anything you do separately (or severally--think sever) is not. So if something involves the United States--then it involves all of them or the joint venture (a singularity--the union itself)--the joint venture is in a sense "all of them" and is always an "interstate matter" because the joint venture is from its inception between-the-states. The other aspect is that the joint venture has its own "states". That is too deep thinking for some, it has seemed.
One way of looking at it too is that the court was reaching a bit, because they are kind've forcing continuity when there could have been a technical break upon the onset of the American Revolutionary War.
Taking a looking at the U.S. Army Great Seal (or is it the Department of the Army coat of arms?) might be insightful ("1775"). Note: 12 stars rather than 13.Quote:
Re: "United Colonies" It gets even more interesting. The United Colonies of New England was established in the 1600s.