Joshism
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Location
- Jupiter, FL
Rhode Island's behavior underscores my belief the state ahould have long ago been merged into Connecticut.
The title of this new thread isn't the question I would ask.
And yet, neither NC nor RI had ratified the Constitution. So how were they part of the union at that time?
At that point, Rhode Island had finally called a Convention to ratify the Constitution (attempt #12, the first 11 attempts did not result in a Convention) and the Convention had met (March or April?) and adjourned without reaching a decision. The Senate bill was called "An Act to Restrict Trade with Rhode Island". That was on May 18, 1790; about the same time, possibly the same bill, the Senate authorized George Washington to use whatever force might be necessary to collect the money owed to the US by Rhode Island (RI was in a financial crisis and also on the verge of civil war and a "secession" of their own; they were deadbeats not paying what they owed).
So that is May 18th. Washington and the Congress were in New York City. It would take a day or two to get the news to Providence, weather permitting. That gets us to May 20. Rhode Island suddenly decided they would ratify the Constitution after all and did so on May 29. On June 1st, Washington officially notified the Congress that he had received official notice that Rhode Island had, indeed, ratified the Constitution.
The definition of the word “secede” is to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc. The AOC created a political union or confederation of sovereign states that was adopted by Congress and subsequently ratified by the states. However, the states withdrew or seceded from the political union under the AOC in order to form the new federal union under the Constitution which came into force in 1789.
And yet, neither NC nor RI had ratified the Constitution. So how were they part of the union at that time?
They were obviously independent and outside the Union.
And since Rhode Island did not participate in the creation of the Constitution, it cannot be said that "all the States" created the new Union and the new government.
So they were bullied into joining the Union.
By what specific act and on what date did North Carolina or Rhode Island leave the Union?
- North Carolina ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union on April 5, 1778.
- Rhode Island ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union on February 9, 1778.
- The Union of the United States of America was formed by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and continued under the Constitution. It is the same Union today as it was then.
It is the same Union continuing under the Constitution (the Constitution itself makes this plain and clear), not a new Union.
Rhode Island was invited to the Philadelphia Constitution and chose not to attend. Rhode Island thus decided not to participate in the discussions that led to the writing and recommendation of the Constitution to the Congress, leaving that to the other States.
The Philadelphia Convention had no power and thus could not and did not create the Constitution as law.
The Congress of the United States of America received the proposed Constitution, debated the Constitution, voted on the Constitution, approved the Constitution, and sent the Constitution to the States for ratification. This is completely in accord with Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
The thirteen States each ratified the Constitution in convention. This is completely in accord with Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Both Rhode Island and North Carolina had every opportunity to participate in the creation of the new government of the Constitution. They were laggardly in approving it -- but the fact is that they did approve the Constitution.
What is your point here? They were participating in a political event and politics normally involves one form of persuasion or another.
Wouldn't they have become Luxemborg or Monaco? Tiny city states existing because the national state decided they weren't worth the trouble?I'm just baffled at the idea that states which had not ratified the Constitution were still supposedly members of the Union. How long, under this theory, would a member of the Union be allowed to remain a member without ratifying the Constitution once it was in place?
As you mentioned, the adoption of the Constitution was the creation of a new political union between the states. The AOC was a loose confederation of states that did not contain an executive or judicial branch among other things. The Constitution created a new federal union that had a strong central government which had the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce.As soon as the Constitution reached the required 9 states ratification, the Union was organized under it and governed by it, and consequently the AOC was no longer in effect. Which means the Union formed by that document had ended, and any state that had not ratified the Constitution was a State outside the Union.
The Union didn't just carry on in existence with no change in membership regardless. That's nonsense. Are you contending that Rhode Island and North Carolina could simply have refused to ratify the Constitution, and they would have remained members of the Union in perpetuity anyway? Of course not. Assent to the fundamental law and organizing document was a requirement of Union membership.
The Constitution makes it clear that it's a new Union. The wording "... to form a more perfect Union..." speaks of a new creation. That they intend to form it using the same components (States/people) that formed the old Union does not make it the same Union. And they were well aware that not every component of that old Union might form a part of the new Union, so even the Founders would not agree with you here.
Again, it doesn't matter. The Constitution had been approved and was in operation whether or not these two states joined or not. Their decisions made no difference on that count.
The point is that it's inaccurate to paint Rhode Island's ratification as part of some "unanimous consent" of "we the people" to their new government when it was nothing of the kind.
Fact: Rhode Island did ratify the Constitution.
Imagination: your idea that somehow their ratification doesn't count.
Rhode Island had a choice. In May of 1791 the US Senate was showing them what their future looked like. They could remain part of the Union or they could leave
I didn't say that it didn't count. But it cannot be used to claim after the fact that there was unanimous consent and unanimous participation in the creation and implementation of the Constitution. They joined an already existing and functioning government that was created and put into place without their partiicpation, and which would have functioned just fine without them.
Can you provide contemporary documents that demonstrate that Rhode Island was legally a part of the Union?
The very fact that Congress could treat them as a foreign country would indicate that Rhode Island was not in the Union, or else the guarantees of the Constitution should have protected them from such treatment. What you're arguing here is that they were on some sort of "probationary period" at the pleasure of the Congress, but there's no provision in the Constitution for that, surely.