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.
My Civil War interest has mostly been strategy and tactics, but lately, thanks in large part to this discussion board, I've become more interested in the politics and causes of the war. There have been many interesting discussions here that have certainly piqued and raised my awareness. One night my wife was talking to me while I was on the computer and she said, "Are you listening to me?" and I snapped back at her, "Geez, can't you see I'm reading the Constitution?" I don't think many husband-and-wife quarrels end on that note.
At any rate, here's my question. The Constitution was ratified by nine of the 13 original states, as stipulated, and on March 4, 1789 , it went into effect. Yet North Carolina did not ratify until Nov. 21, 1789, and Rhode Island didn't ratify until May 29, 1790.
Sooooo....
Under what document are NC and RI covered, the Articles or the Constitution? Does that period of limbo actually make them sovereign nations until they ratify the USC? Did all the states actually secede legally from the Articles before ratifying the Constitution or was it merely a transition period? And if it was "secession" from the Articles, which were supposed to be perpetual, does the withdrawal from that document set a precedent for secession?
I guess that's actually four questions. Maybe five. Maybe it's a good thing we have all these lawyers on the forum, so I'm certain I can get a clear, definite answer that's easy to understand.
And I'm sure you'll get some fine answers. (Which I will avidly and eagerly read.)
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Very unique. : ) How did she react, if you don't mind me asking?
As to your legal questions.
This is a personal interpetation of the situation, clarification will be offered if desired.
1) The Articles, until they ratify the Constitution.
2) No. They're still part of the "United States".
3) Transition period. The Constitution was meant to be the "United States 1.2" patch. (1.0 being the Revolution, pre Articles.)
4) I would say no, as secession in the sense that it later became an issue was attempting to form a seperate and distinct entity from the United States, based on the idea that the states were sovereign (national like) states that happened to be allied together, rather than parts of one country.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
And I'm sure you'll get some fine answers. (Which I will avidly and eagerly read.)
ole
But not from me. It is because I struck out on these questions that PvtClewell has brought them to the board.
I will, however, point out that North Carolina and Rhode Island did not vote in the first presidential election since they had not ratified the Constitution yet. They did have representatives and senators in the First Congress but I assume that these were not seated until after each state ratified the Constitution.
My own personal opinion is that this does not set a precedence for secession in that since the government of the Articles of Confederation became the government of the Constitution, and since the government of the Articles of Confederation was a "perpetual union" and the Constitution created a "more perfect union" (as the Supreme Court noted in White v. Texas) the ratification of the Constitution was the last chance to "opt out" of the new, permanment union of the Constitution.
Note further that the argument of sovereign states joining together to form the United States being a basis for secession only works, if at all, for the original thirteen colonies and Texas. No other states were even arguably a sovereign entity before they became a state of the United States. The other states (which means most of the Confederacy) were actually creations of the Federal Government.
Further, it is my impression that between the establishment of the federal government under the Constitution and the ratification of the Constitution by North Carolina and Rhode Island, neither took any actions as an independant country and were not treated as an independant country by the rest of the United States, but that is a question I throw out to the rest of the forum. I get the impression that everyone simply assumed that NC and RI would eventually ratify the Constitution and such ratification was viewed as retroactive to the date of the establishment of the Constitution.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Under what document are NC and RI covered, the Articles or the Constitution? Does that period of limbo actually make them sovereign nations until they ratify the USC? Did all the states actually secede legally from the Articles before ratifying the Constitution or was it merely a transition period? And if it was "secession" from the Articles, which were supposed to be perpetual, does the withdrawal from that document set a precedent for secession?
Technically NC and RI would be covered by the Articles. Technically, the other members of the Union would be 'excluding' NC and RI.
It does not set a precedent for secession because the parties are different. In the Articles 'Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.' and 'The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.'; whereas with the US Consititution its the 'people of the United States'
Notwithstanding, ALL of the states essentially left and the US Constitution was ratified. The people of the United States can still change the Constitution by Amendment with a super-majority and ostensibly can dissolve it in a similar manner.
Essentially the government under the Articles was impotent and irrelevant. Without the power to enforce law; there was no point to it, instead of a government, you really may as well have called it an advisory council.
__________________ The United States forever!
Last edited by cw1865; 08-18-2008 at 01:09 AM.
Reason: submitted too soon
A couple of points to dash off before I dash off to work:
I've never thought about this, but I don't see how the status of Rhode Island at the end of 1789 can have been "covered by the Articles of Confederation," which at that point had essentially evaporated.
And I have read, actually, that Rhode Island was ambivalent about the Constitution until Connecticut and Massachusetts started collecting customs at the state line!
Now, about Vermont....
At any rate, here's my question. The Constitution was ratified by nine of the 13 original states, as stipulated, and on March 4, 1789 , it went into effect. Yet North Carolina did not ratify until Nov. 21, 1789, and Rhode Island didn't ratify until May 29, 1790.
Sooooo....
Opening a can of worms, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PvtClewell
Under what document are NC and RI covered, the Articles or the Constitution?
There was actually a period where both "governments" were in existence, but eventually the Articles of Confederation one closed itself down and gave all their records to the Constitution one. However, throughout the period there was always one and only one United States of America. The question of which one of these was truly "the" government during that period would be an interesting legal debate, but essentially became moot. (Also, after the fact of acceptance by Rhode Island and North Carolina, no state wanted to open this can of worms, I am sure.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PvtClewell
Does that period of limbo actually make them sovereign nations until they ratify the USC?
No, in one way or another they are always considered part of the United States. There was, however, a certain amount of politicking and arm-twisting that went on, and no one was interested in splitting hairs about it once the deal was done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PvtClewell
Did all the states actually secede legally from the Articles before ratifying the Constitution or was it merely a transition period?
No, there is and always has been only one United States of America. It exists continuously under both agreements. It never went away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PvtClewell
And if it was "secession" from the Articles, which were supposed to be perpetual, does the withdrawal from that document set a precedent for secession?
Again, there was no secession and the United States of America existed continuously. One good summary of this can be found in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court decision on Texas v. White in 1869.
Many of the states, BTW, have had multiple Constitutions over the years. They do not declare themselves out of existence and form a new state when they change them (i.e., the counties and towns do not "secede").
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Upon ratification by the 9th state, didn't the Constitution become the law of all the land? That the holdouts were considered subject to the Constitution? And that their ratification was a matter only of unanimity?
Of course, there's that little deal of collecting tolls and tariffs from Rhode Island, but wouldn't that have been considered unconstitutional, had it been challenged?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Upon ratification by the 9th state, didn't the Constitution become the law of all the land? That the holdouts were considered subject to the Constitution? And that their ratification was a matter only of unanimity?
Of course, there's that little deal of collecting tolls and tariffs from Rhode Island, but wouldn't that have been considered unconstitutional, had it been challenged?
ole
No, Ole. Article VII of the Constitution provides: "The ratification of the convention of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." [emphasis mine]. This clearly implies that the constitution would not be applicable to states that did not ratify the constitution.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
What of Vermont, the independent republic/state from 1777-1791 and later the fourteenth US state? What was Vermont's status in relation the the US both before 1777-1781 and during the Articles of Confederation 1781-1789 and after the US Constitution was ratified in 1788 and before Vermont ratified the US Constitution 1791?
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Articles of Confederation question 
Linear Mode
