Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I posted this response to you in another thread, but with all the traffic here it probably escaped your notice. I put it out here on its' own because it seemed good to get this out from under the clutter. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor Tim, just for the record, was Rhode Island in the Union or out of it on May 10 1790?
I would consider that matter unresolved legally. People certainly had opinions about it; my own would be that they were a recalcitrant member being dragooned into compliance politely. At that moment in time Rhode Island was finally holding the convention to consider ratification of the Constitution. The Congress was trying to exert pressure to get them to finally ratify it.
A question for you: if they were not in the Union, what act (on their part or on some other party's part) had caused them to be out of it? On what date do you consider them to no longer be a member of the United States, and why?
I posted this response to you in another thread, but with all the traffic here it probably escaped your notice. I put it out here on its' own because it seemed good to get this out from under the clutter. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate your response.
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnTaylor Tim, just for the record, was Rhode Island in the Union or out of it on May 10 1790?
I would consider that matter unresolved legally. People certainly had opinions about it; my own would be that they were a recalcitrant member being dragooned into compliance politely. At that moment in time Rhode Island was finally holding the convention to consider ratification of the Constitution. The Congress was trying to exert pressure to get them to finally ratify it.
A question for you: if they were not in the Union, what act (on their part or on some other party's part) had caused them to be out of it? On what date do you consider them to no longer be a member of the United States, and why?
Regards, Tim
Tim, I must respectfully, but firmly disagree with your assertion that there were differences of opinion. I have seen no source from the period that would show that anyone considered Rhode Island to be in any way in the Union. Perhaps you have some period source that would show this was the case. If so, put up. If Congress considered Rhode Island to be in the Union, they could not legally have even considered putting tariffs on Rhode Island goods. In the initial US tariff law, they had deliberately exempted goods made in Rhode Island (foreign goods imported through Rhode Island were subject to tariff), and by May 1790, their patience was used up, and they were about to put tariffs on Rhode Island. Also on the table was the bill to prohibit trade from Rhode Island, including goods made in Rhode Island.
Resolved, That all commercial intercourse between the United States and the State of Rhode Island, (obviously there was a difference in Congress’ mind between the US and Rhode Island) from and after the first day of July next, be prohibited, under suitable penalties; and that the President of the United States be authorized to demand of the State of Rhode Island 27,000 dollars, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States by the first day of July next; which shall be credited to the said State, in account with the United States, and that a bill or bills be brought in for those purposes. Ordered, That the committee who brought in the above report prepare and report a bill accordingly. History of the Proceedings and Debates of the Senate of the United States, vol. 1, pg. 1009-1010. (14 May 1790)
In the House, on Wednesday, May 26, [1790] Mr. Page (of Virginia) rose, and moved that the Committee of the whole be discharged from considering the bill respecting the State of Rhode Island, which originated in the Senate, and hoped it would be rejected; for, said he, I think, as the Convention of that State is to sit in a few days, we should have nothing before Congress which should tend to influence their choice of the Constitution under which they are to live. It particularly behooves this House, as representatives of republican States, which have always asserted their right to judge for themselves in all cases which interested them as freemen; which adopted the plan of Government after mature deliberation, unbiassed by any such motives as the bill alluded to holds out to Rhode Island. I say it becomes this House to take care therefore that their sister State, now about to consider of the propriety of adopting the Constitution, shall be as free to judge for herself as was any other State in the Union. Should this bill pass, and should Rhode Island adopt the Constitution, she will come with s bad a grace into the Union, that she must be ashamed when she enters it, and the independent States must blush when they receive her. She will be laughed at by the majorities in the other States, and despised by the minorities. How far this may tend to strengthen the Union, let those who favor the bill judge. She would be in the situation of a soldier pressed into service, looked upon as unworthy to be ranger with the volunteers; suspected of an inclination to desert, till perhaps, indeed, it may become her interest, like this, to do so, and to act vigorously against those who had insulted her. Surely, sir, it becomes this House to pity the frailty of the weak and ignorant, who knew not the blessings of our new Government, to forgive the perverse and wicked who oppose it from base principles, and to show a generous indulgence to that jealous cautious republican which indeed we should cherish and revere. Let this House manifest such a disposition, and I will venture to predict the happiest consequences. Rhode Island will find it her interest to unite with States possessing such magnanimity: her rights, she will see, can never be violated, and her true interests never can be neglected. But, sir, if we show we are more anxious to complete the number of our States than to preserve inviolate the rights of freemen, and the principles of the late glorious revolution; if we are more solicitous to restrict smuggling than to extend the benign influence of our new Constitution, through the State of Rhode Island, as well as through the twelve other States, what can that State expect from a Union with States thus disposed? But if we not only manifestly show this disposition, but also a malevolence resembling that which Great Britain showed, when she, in her rage, to answer her revenge, and to extend her despotic power over America, shut up he port of Boston, hoping to starve into submission its virtuous citizens. Must not the Rhode Islanders, like the Bostonians, detest the cruel attempts, resent it, and, by their resentment, may not the consequences be too much like those which followed in the case alluded to? May they not be applauded by true republicans throughout the world? May they not be supported by the enemies of our peace? Sir, they will take advantage of every circumstance which may afford them an opportunity of gratifying their envy or revenge. There is, perhaps, but one nation upon earth, which wishes to see these States flourish in peace, and it may not be long before she may think that our growing greatness may interfere with hers. Let us not, therefore, run the risk of endangering the peace and harmony of the United States; let us not even wound the feelings of a sister State; let us not expose ourselves to the charge of inconsistency, impropriety, rashness, and cruelty; but let us, to avoid those charges, discharge the Committee of the whole, take up the bill in the House, and reject it as once, leaving Rhode Island unbiassed, by any thing Congress can do, to adopt or reject the Constitution, as they may think proper. If they adopt it, the bill will be unnecessary; if they should reject it, then let us leave them on a footing with foreigners – they are allies at present, and should be treated as such. But it is said our revenue is in danger. Sir, take my advice, and you will make it the interest of Rhode Island to unite with us, or at least lay her under high obligation not to smuggle; but go on with the bill, and you force her to smuggle, nay, perhaps, to be your enemy for ever. States in Europe adjoining each other show us that this bill is unnecessary. It would be thought madness there to interdict all commercial intercourse of neighboring States, merely with a view to prevent smuggling. It would I believe, too, be looked upon as equal to a declaration of war. Sir, I lament that this bill has been committed; but if it should now be taken up and rejected, it will be doing all that can be done – and will show, that as soon as the attention of the House was turned to it, a proper regard was shown for the rights of freemen. This bill is too inconsistent with the character which the Representatives of States ought to support; it has too much the appearance of certain British acts of Parliament, which our constituents they execrated. Surely, sir, the Representatives of Massachusetts must unite with me in opinion, that such a bill should not be committed. The members of States which applauded the glorious spirit of that State in opposition to a similar act who risked their all in her support, and thereby acquired liberty and immortal honor, will, I trust, vote with me, and surely the States which came late into the Union, and such as adopted the Constitution by a small majority, will consider that the case of Rhode Island might have been their own. Surely, even those, if such there be amongst us, who think that devoted State to be as British Ministers said America was – a nest of miscreants – will allow that it will be inhuman to punish the innocent with the guilty. I think, therefore, that the bill deserves not the sanction of this House; that it is impolitic and unjust. I hope the committee will be discharged, and the bill taken up for a third reading, and rejected, time enough, to leave the Convention of Rhode Island free to adopt the Constitution, or reject it, as they may please. Let us consider with what indignation the Convention of any of the States which we represent, if about to sit on such an occasion, would have received such an act of Congress. Would they not have protested against it as an insult, and adjourned without deliberating on the favorite Constitution? Is there a man in this House, were he in such a Convention, who would not agree to such a protest and adjournment? But, sir, let us consider the design of the bill. If it be intended to induce the State of Rhode Island to come into the Union, I think I have shown that it is badly calculated to answer that purpose; and if it be intended to prevent smuggling, I think I have shown that it is more likely to produce that evil than to prevent it. If the motion be agreed to, no inconvenience can arise, but much mischief may be prevented. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with me, that the Committee of the whole be discharged, and will not leave such a bill hanging over the heads of the people of Rhode Island, which must put them into a situation different from that of any other State in the Union when they adopted the Constitution. Let it not be said, sir, I conjure this House, that the confederated republics of America have united upon any other principle than that of a free and perfect conviction of the excellence of their federal plan of Government. Let it not be said that fear had any share in bringing even the smallest State into the Union. Let us not treat a sister State in the very manner we disdained to be treated by Great Britain. Several gentlemen observed on the impropriety of the motion, as the bill was made the order of a future day, next Monday, and Mr. Parker having withdrawn his second, the motion subsided. (History of Debates in the House or Representatives, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1672-74.)
If Rhode Island were in the Union, this would have been unconstitutional. But Rhode Island was out of the Union, so it was allowable, from a constitutional perspective, although some members thought that it was morally wrong to pressure Rhode Island in such a manner, to ratify the Constitution and join the Union. On August 30th, 1787, in the Philadelphia Convention, James Wilson, of Pennsylvania said, “As the Constitution stands, the States only which ratify can be bound. We must he said in this case go to the original powers of Society. The House on fire must be extinguished, without a scrupulous regard to ordinary rights.”
But to answer your question, philosophically, Rhode Island was out of the Union on June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire, the ninth State Convention to ratify, adopted the Constitution. Functionally, she was out of the Union on March 4th, 1788, when the new Federal office holders, elected under the provisions of the new US Constitution, started to take their respective seats. It is worth noting that Rhode Island was out of the Union (a Union which had been declared to be perpetual under the Articles of Confederation) due to no action at all on her part. She had done nothing, but her reluctance to join had meant that the other nine (or eleven) were not restrained from seeking their own safety by erecting a new stronger central government. Mr. Page (and others) felt that it would be improper to pressure Rhode Island to join, because they wanted the Union to consist only of States that wanted to be part of the Union. I hope this answers the question. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
... But to answer your question, philosophically, Rhode Island was out of the Union on June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire, the ninth State Convention to ratify, adopted the Constitution. Functionally, she was out of the Union on March 4th, 1788, when the new Federal office holders, elected under the provisions of the new US Constitution, started to take their respective seats. It is worth noting that Rhode Island was out of the Union (a Union which had been declared to be perpetual under the Articles of Confederation) due to no action at all on her part. She had done nothing, but her reluctance to join had meant that the other nine (or eleven) were not restrained from seeking their own safety by erecting a new stronger central government. Mr. Page (and others) felt that it would be improper to pressure Rhode Island to join, because they wanted the Union to consist only of States that wanted to be part of the Union. I hope this answers the question.
It appears to say that you can find no act, by Rhode Island or any other party, that caused Rhode Island to cease to be part of the Union. However you, as well as others, seem to find that she was "philosophically" not part of the Union. Is that about what you mean to say above?
BTW, the March 4th date was postponed because a quorum did not meet, and I suspect you mistyped the date and actually meant 1789 in any case. That is only the date for the new form of government to be instituted in any case, since the Union pre-existed the Constitution and continued after it was adopted.
It appears to say that you can find no act, by Rhode Island or any other party, that caused Rhode Island to cease to be part of the Union. However you, as well as others, seem to find that she was "philosophically" not part of the Union. Is that about what you mean to say above?
BTW, the March 4th date was postponed because a quorum did not meet, and I suspect you mistyped the date and actually meant 1789 in any case. That is only the date for the new form of government to be instituted in any case, since the Union pre-existed the Constitution and continued after it was adopted.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, you are correct. I meant March 4th, 1789. The first members of Congress started to show up on that date, but a quorum was not present until April 1st (House) or April 6th (Senate).
Since the new Union under the Constitution was not scheduled to enact anything until then, this new Union held little meaning until March 4th 1789. The Union under the Articles of Confederation, in the meantime, died with a whimper. The last time the Continental Congress conducted any business was October 10th, 1788. The last time a North Carolina delegate (Hugh Williamson) attended was November 3rd, 1788, and the last time a delegate from Rhode Island (John Gardner) attended was February 12th, 1789. That is why I said that Rhode Island was out of the Union on March 4th, because the new government started to meet on that date. By June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified the Constitution, however, philosophically, Rhode Island was destined for independence from the Union unless she ratified the Constitution before the new government met.
No comment on the enactment of the Rhode Island prohibition bill? How could Congress do this if Rhode Island was still in the Union? Congress acknowledged that Rhode Island was not in the Union. If the historical record undermines your argument, I would suggest that the historical record is not wrong.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Tim, you are correct. I meant March 4th, 1789. The first members of Congress started to show up on that date, but a quorum was not present until April 1st (House) or April 6th (Senate).
Since the new Union under the Constitution was not scheduled to enact anything until then, this new Union held little meaning until March 4th 1789. The Union under the Articles of Confederation, in the meantime, died with a whimper. The last time the Continental Congress conducted any business was October 10th, 1788. The last time a North Carolina delegate (Hugh Williamson) attended was November 3rd, 1788, and the last time a delegate from Rhode Island (John Gardner) attended was February 12th, 1789.
Yes, I agree that the government structure established by the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" died with a whimper,. The last official act may have been when Charles Thomson, the "perpetual secretary" of the Congress turned over the records to the new government sometime in July of 1789. That would have been right after Thomson discovered he had been hornswoggled out of a job with the new Congress by his enemies.
The Union did not die. It continued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
That is why I said that Rhode Island was out of the Union on March 4th, because the new government started to meet on that date. By June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified the Constitution, however, philosophically, Rhode Island was destined for independence from the Union unless she ratified the Constitution before the new government met.
Philosophically, I am a free, intelligent, independent, sovereign being. You might want to ask God or my wife for a second opinion on that, however.
Seriously, what you are saying is that there is not and never was any specific act or document that you can point to which removed Rhode Island from the Union, either on their part or on any other party's part. We do know for certain, however, that the Union already existed and continued to exist, that Rhode Island had deliberately and specifically joined that Union, and that the other states had continued to treat her and refer to her as a fellow State. This is evident even in the excerpts you are quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
No comment on the enactment of the Rhode Island prohibition bill? How could Congress do this if Rhode Island was still in the Union? Congress acknowledged that Rhode Island was not in the Union. If the historical record undermines your argument, I would suggest that the historical record is not wrong.
John, we are talking about politicians and lawyers here. They have no trouble swallowing camels and straining at gnats, or finding the mote in the other guy's eye while ignoring the beam in their own.
You are talking specifically about May of 1790 here. Rhode Island, after roughly two years of turmoil, was finally holding a convention on the new Constitution. If you want, we can trudge through the details of the Hazzard faction and the rural areas dominance over the urban in Rhode Island at that time, and the threat of Providence to separate from Rhode Island if the Convention was not held, and the attempts to substitute a plebiscite for the Convention, and the boycott of the election by those who thought it was an illegal attempt to avoid the required Convention of the people. We can talk about the debt issues involved and the Quakers who wanted to reject the Constitution because it was, in their opinion, a pro-slaver agreement. But it will have little to do with the Civil War, and it is really pretty dry stuff for most people.
In May of 1790, Rhode Island was holding their Convention and the Congress was trying to pressure them in how they would vote. Plain and simple. Rhode Island was strapped for cash, in heavy debt. They had not paid money they owed to the central government. So the bill you are referring to is clearly coercive in nature, assuming it passed and was implemented. This was the stick. At the same time, Congress was showing them the carrot: assumption of state debts by the Federal government.
It isn't very pretty. It isn't very nice. It may not have been constitutional - but then the entire adoption process of the Constitution is not exactly legitimate under the Articles of Confederation. It is, however, what was going on. Rhode Island was being told to make up its mind, one way or the other -- and being shown just how bad one way might be.
Rhode Island got the word. The Constitution passed by two votes. George Washington left for the celebration dinner in Rhode Island shortly afterwards.
Seriously, what you are saying is that there is not and never was any specific act or document that you can point to which removed Rhode Island from the Union, either on their part or on any other party's part.
No, you are mis-stating what I said. The specific act was the ratification of the ninth State (New Hampshire) and the delayed effect of that act was felt on March 4th, 1789. The Founders felt that, if nine of the thirteen wanted the Union to take a new direction, the unwillingness of the other four would not stop the nine from, to use Butler’s words in Philadelphia, “consulting their safety.” But that unwillingness (on part of the four) would mean that they were on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
We do know for certain, however, that the Union already existed and continued to exist, that Rhode Island had deliberately and specifically joined that Union, and that the other states had continued to treat her and refer to her as a fellow State. This is evident even in the excerpts you are quoting.
Tim, you are correct on one point. There was no point at which the United States ceased to exist. But, to deny that Rhode Island was somehow part of the Union between March 1789 and May 1790 is to deny what the record says. And no one, in any of the other States, or the Federal government, suggested that they were in, or that forcing them in any way to join would have been proper. Any State that refused was out of the Union, and since every State had that power, then it follows that the ultimate authority to join the Union or not was with the people of each State.
Now, it is a separate issue of whether the powers delegated from the people of the States were subject to recall, but to deny that Rhode Island was out of the Union between April 1789 and May 1790 is to stubbornly deny the historical record. I have provided lots of quotes from the historical record that show clearly to any objective mind that Federal and State office holders and private citizens of that time all knew and acknowledged that Rhode Island and North Carolina were out of the Union between March 4th 1789 and the dates on which these States ratified the Constitution. You have concluded that Rhode Island was somehow in the Union because of the damage Rhode Island’s independence does to your philosophical construct on the nature of the Union, yet you have failed to provide anything from the historical record to back your assertion up. Absolutely nothing. I say that such information is not forthcoming, because your view of the nature of the Union is incorrect, and not in line with that of the founders of the Republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You are talking specifically about May of 1790 here. Rhode Island, after roughly two years of turmoil, was finally holding a convention on the new Constitution. If you want, we can trudge through the details of the Hazzard faction and the rural areas dominance over the urban in Rhode Island at that time, and the threat of Providence to separate from Rhode Island if the Convention was not held, and the attempts to substitute a plebiscite for the Convention, and the boycott of the election by those who thought it was an illegal attempt to avoid the required Convention of the people. We can talk about the debt issues involved and the Quakers who wanted to reject the Constitution because it was, in their opinion, a pro-slaver agreement.
None of which changes the irrefutable fact that Rhode Island was out of the Union between the sitting of the government under the Constitution and her ratification of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
But it will have little to do with the Civil War, and it is really pretty dry stuff for most people.
Au contraire, it directly addresses the nature of the Union, and whether the Federal government was specifically empowered to force States to remain in the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
In May of 1790, Rhode Island was holding their Convention and the Congress was trying to pressure them in how they would vote. Plain and simple. Rhode Island was strapped for cash, in heavy debt. They had not paid money they owed to the central government. So the bill you are referring to is clearly coercive in nature, assuming it passed and was implemented. This was the stick. At the same time, Congress was showing them the carrot: assumption of state debts by the Federal government.
It isn't very pretty. It isn't very nice. It may not have been constitutional -
Tim, my construction of Federal powers is as strict as anyone you are likely to meet, yet I have no problem with the United States government telling a foreign government (Rhode Island’s) to pay up its share of a debt incurred jointly. Page wanted the people of Rhode Island to adopt the Constitution because of its merits, not because of a threat of debt being dumped on Rhode Island if they refused. But if Rhode Island refused, then the US, in my view, had a right to demand $27,000 from her for the cost incurred in gaining her independence. That is merely normal international affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
but then the entire adoption process of the Constitution is not exactly legitimate under the Articles of Confederation.
The process was not illegitimate if one adopts the Founder’s view that joining the Union was the decision of the people of each State to make, and that relying on what James Wilson called “the original powers of Society:” namely the will of the people. Madison and others felt that resorting to the people circumvented the difficulty.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
The process was not illegitimate if one adopts the Founder’s view that joining the Union was the decision of the people of each State to make, and that relying on what James Wilson called “the original powers of Society:” namely the will of the people. Madison and others felt that resorting to the people circumvented the difficulty.
Yes, John, that argument has been used. Some people agree with it; some don't. It is no different than the "philosophical" concept you have that Rhode Island somehow was no longer part of the Union.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union clearly defines one and only one way in which the agreement of the Articles can be modified. It was not followed in the adoption of the Constitution. Some opponents at the time used this disregard of an article in the existing agreement as an argument that no faith should be put in the proposed new agreement. I am not sure, but I think if you review the posts you have already made in various threads you will find at least one of the speeches you have cited might refer to this argument.
As to the "Founders view": 12 states appointed 73 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (Rhode Island refusing to participate); only 55 delegates actually attended; only 39 actually signed off on the Constitution. Even those who signed had differing views as to what the document meant, and obviously you have a grasp of the intense argument the document generated in the states. Which "Founders" do you want to talk about here?
As to the "Founders view": 12 states appointed 73 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (Rhode Island refusing to participate); only 55 delegates actually attended; only 39 actually signed off on the Constitution. Even those who signed had differing views as to what the document meant, and obviously you have a grasp of the intense argument the document generated in the states. Which "Founders" do you want to talk about here?
Tim, ever since I read the debates in Philadelphia and then those in the State Conventions, I have always considered the true "Founders" to be the delegates in the State Conventions. Edmond Randolph made it clear that the Constitution, as it was written in 1787, was only a proposal.
It was the unanimity of those proposing adoption, that the powers delegated from the people of the States to the Federal government were limited to the express grant, that I find so remarkable. No advocate said that the Federal government would be able to exercise undelegated powers. The people of the States took them at their word, and adopted based on that understanding.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Tim, ever since I read the debates in Philadelphia and then those in the State Conventions, I have always considered the true "Founders" to be the delegates in the State Conventions. Edmond Randolph made it clear that the Constitution, as it was written in 1787, was only a proposal.
It was the unanimity of those proposing adoption, that the powers delegated from the people of the States to the Federal government were limited to the express grant, that I find so remarkable. No advocate said that the Federal government would be able to exercise undelegated powers. The people of the States took them at their word, and adopted based on that understanding.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
I might add, that I had to modify my views based no reading these documents. I had originally felt that the Federal government was empowered to deal with any issue that transcended a State boundary. Having read the records of the debates in Philadelphia and the several State Conventions, I now realize that the Founders intended the Federal government's powers to be limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, since the people of the States accepted the proposal based on this assurance.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
No, you are mis-stating what I said. The specific act was the ratification of the ninth State (New Hampshire) and the delayed effect of that act was felt on March 4th, 1789. The Founders felt that, if nine of the thirteen wanted the Union to take a new direction, the unwillingness of the other four would not stop the nine from, to use Butler’s words in Philadelphia, “consulting their safety.” But that unwillingness (on part of the four) would mean that they were on their own.
Whoa! This appears to be a claim completely unsupported by documentary evidence on your part. You have described that as a philosophical separation earlier in this thread. Please show where it is an actual and legal one by citing the text that accomplishes what you are describing.
This is something I have already asked for more than once, and which you have continued to sidestep. I believe that the reason you cannot provide a cite, with your obvious access to original documents here you like to quote from, is that there simply is no source for what you wish to assert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Tim, you are correct on one point. There was no point at which the United States ceased to exist. But, to deny that Rhode Island was somehow part of the Union between March 1789 and May 1790 is to deny what the record says. And no one, in any of the other States, or the Federal government, suggested that they were in, or that forcing them in any way to join would have been proper. Any State that refused was out of the Union, and since every State had that power, then it follows that the ultimate authority to join the Union or not was with the people of each State.
Look, John, you like to state assumptions as facts and then dare people to disprove your claims. Time to reverse that.
Take the May 1790 act you are claiming "proves" that Rhode Island was out of the Union. (See post #2 in this thread) Your proof is merely assumption. All such are two-edged swords that cut both ways, while you insist their is only one edge to the blade.
For example, you tell us: " If Congress considered Rhode Island to be in the Union, they could not legally have even considered putting tariffs on Rhode Island goods. In the initial US tariff law, they had deliberately exempted goods made in Rhode Island (foreign goods imported through Rhode Island were subject to tariff), and by May 1790, their patience was used up, and they were about to put tariffs on Rhode Island. Also on the table was the bill to prohibit trade from Rhode Island, including goods made in Rhode Island. "
This actually disproves your claim. Very clearly, the US Congress was treating Rhode Island as simply a part of the Union before this bill was discussed: they were tereated the same as every other state in the Union, and differently than every foreign nation the US had commerce with. So, if we want to implement the logical structure you have formed, we must assume that the US Congress believed Rhose Island was still in the Union up through the time this new bill was being considered in May of 1790. If they did not believe they were part of the Union "philosophically", they would have been charging tariffs on Rhode Island goods in 1789-1790, and we know they were not charging tariffs on Rhose Island goods. Your logic gives us no other alternative here.
As I have mentioned before, the Congress in May of 1790 was deliberately ratcheting up the pressure on Rhode Island. That state had gone from 1787-1789 without calling the required constitutional convention to consider ratification, finally doing so under pressure in January of 1790. That met in South Kingstown (March 1-6) and adjourned without coming to a decision, with another session scheduled for May 24-29 in Newport.
Now you have pointed to a bill being voted on/discussed in both houses of Congress in that very month; you have quoted Congressman speaking on it on May 26, while the Newport convention is meeting. With Congress in New York, news of what was said on the floor of Congress was probably being read in Newport with a delay of not much more than a day.
So what you have here, actually, is a Federal government that is pressuring the Rhode Island convention. It looks like if Rhode Island wants out, they are willing to let them go -- and they are willing to show them what happens if they go. Tariffs on all their goods, a demand to pay their debts, and an authorization for the President to insist upon payment. Not mentioned but clearly underlying that is the possibility that if the demand is refused, something will be done to collect the debt anyway. At the same time, Rhode Island is being shown the carrot to go with this stick if they adopt the Constitution: the Federal government assuming many state debts (thus getting Rhode Island out of a financial bind).
As to "they could not legally have even considered", I am puzzled by your position. Congress considers unconstitutional acts frequently. It sometimes happens that they actually pass legislation that is unconstitutional, and that sometimes Presidents sign them into law. The Constitution's remedy for this behavior is the Supreme Court. There is no restriction such as you state on the Congress. Are you perhaps from someplace other than the United States where other rules apply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
You have concluded that Rhode Island was somehow in the Union because of the damage Rhode Island’s independence does to your philosophical construct on the nature of the Union, yet you have failed to provide anything from the historical record to back your assertion up. Absolutely nothing. I say that such information is not forthcoming, because your view of the nature of the Union is incorrect, and not in line with that of the founders of the Republic.
Well, no. I have concluded that Rhode Island was still part of the Union for exactly the reasons I have stated: that the Union existed from at least 1781 and that I can find no act by Rhode Island herself or any other party that removed her from it. I have asked you for any such examples, and you have failed to find them as well. The rest of this is simply your imagination at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
None of which changes the irrefutable fact that Rhode Island was out of the Union between the sitting of the government under the Constitution and her ratification of the Constitution.
See above. We are not talking philosophy here; we are talking about the acts of governments. If Rhode Island never left the Union by her own act, and no other party caused Rhode Island to be out of the Union by their act, how then was Rhode Island out of the Union? Please document this for us.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Rhode Island's status, May 1790 
Linear Mode
