Was change of government from the AOC to the Constitution a “Secession”

[unionblue]

So who were the Rhode Island Senators and Congressmen between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790 under the new operating system? And what's up with the Historian Laureate for Rhode Island. Maybe you should apply for that job?

@Duncan ,

Sorry, but I've answered you already and repeated questions off-topic really have no impact on the OP.

Maybe if I put it this way.

The family named the United States traded in it's old Model T Ford for a brand new Chevy SUV. Still the same family, just a different, updated, vehicle to travel in.

Unionblue
PS: I already had several jobs, happily retired from all of them.

 

[Duncan]

So who were the Rhode Island Senators and Congressmen between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790, under the new operating system? And what's up with the Historian Laureate for Rhode Island. Maybe you should apply for that job? It's really that simple.

And factual sources? Yo mean like Stanford Historian and Pulitizer Prize winner Jack Rakove, who says they were out of the union? Or Yale Constitutional Scholar Akhil Amar, who also says they were out of the union? Or MIT Historian Pauline Maier, who says the same? You mean those factual sources?

PS- Do you think I don't know perfectly well, perfectly well, that if Rhode Island had Senators at that time, you would instantly name them?

 

[Duncan]

Strangely, the United States Supreme Court seems to agree with me and disagree with you. Why do you think that is?

Oddly enough, the SC agrees with me? why do you suppose that is?

 

[Duncan]

I think people confuse the fact that the original and replacement Union were both made from the same component parts, but the fact that every state had to either agree with the new government or else end up outside the Union demonstrates that it was in fact a new Union entirely.

AB. SO. LOOT. LEE. Correct.

 

[trice]

SO which is it? A League of States under the AOC, or a Union of People under the Constituion?

PS-

It is one and the same United States of America, beginning on July 4, 1776 according to the United States Supreme Court. This has been settled law since at least 1830 (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor), which decided the citizenship of a deceased man who had been born in New York City in 1776.

The Constitution itself acknowledges that the United States is the same country under the Constitution as it was under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This was important to the men writing the Constitution, because there were rumors they were going to disavow the existing United States debt by dissolving the country -- so they specifically said they would not do that. Please note that this directly denies what you claim happened.

It is also worth noting that the United States has at least one treaty currently in force that was signed the year before the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was called or met, approved by a United States Congress acting under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. That was not the only treaty signed before the Constitution was ratified to remain in force without interruption when the Constitution was ratified. If the country had been dissolved as you claim, this would not have happened.

 

[Duncan]

It is one and the same United States of America, beginning on July 4, 1776 according to the United States Supreme Court. This has been settled law since at least 1830 (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor), which decided the citizenship of a deceased man who had been born in New York City in 1776.

The Constitution itself acknowledges that the United States is the same country under the Constitution as it was under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This was important to the men writing the Constitution, because there were rumors they were going to disavow the existing United States debt by dissolving the country -- so they specifically said they would not do that. Please note that this directly denies what you claim happened.

It is also worth noting that the United States has at least one treaty currently in force that was signed the year before the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was called or met, approved by a United States Congress acting under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. That was not the only treaty signed before the Constitution was ratified to remain in force without interruption when the Constitution was ratified. If the country had been dissolved as you claim, this would not have happened.

So, a League of States and a Union of People are, it turns out, the exact same thing!! Who knew?

 

[Duncan]

@Duncan ,

Sorry, but I've answered you already and repeated questions off-topic really have no impact on the OP.

Maybe if I put it this way.

The family named the United States traded in it's old Model T Ford for a brand new Chevy SUV. Still the same family, just a different, updated, vehicle to travel in.

Unionblue
PS: I already had several jobs, happily retired from all of them.

It's just as well. Insisting that Rhode Island, despite no ratification, no Senators, and no Congressman, was still in the union, is a non-starter.

 

[Duncan]

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.



Exactly. They did not participate. That they had a chance to participate doesn't change the fact that they were not involved in the creation of the new Union in any way. They would have been left outside the Union had they not bowed to the pressure and joined after two years of saying no.



The AOC required unanimous agreement among the 13 states to make such changes. You cannot ignore the fact that the Constitution changed that, and was declared in operation on the consent of only 9 states, and you cannot say after the fact that because all 13 ultimately chose to ratify that they were in accord with the old governing document. That's twisting the facts. That's a retcon that doesn't fit with the reality of what happened.



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.

Excellent post.

 

[unionblue]

It's just as well. Insisting that Rhode Island, despite no ratification, no Senators, and no Congressman, was still in the union, is a non-starter.

From one point of view, it seems certain.

It's just that historical facts and sources already shown to you by other posters say otherwise.

 

[Duncan]

From one point of view, it seems certain.

It's just that historical facts and sources already shown to you by other posters say otherwise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few historical facts:

1. The new Union went into effect March 4, 1789
2. Ratification of the Constitution was required to join the Union
3. Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until May 29, 1790
4. Rhode Island had no U.S. Senators before May 29, 1790
5. Rhode Island had no U.S. Congressman before May 29, 1790
6. Rhode Island was outside the Union, as an independent Republic, between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790

No historical fabrications, from any source, can possibly contradict those irrefutable historical facts.

PS- Why did the Senate in the First (First, not third) U.S. Congress announce that it had eleven, not thirteen, members?

PPS- I'm going to post a screen shot of the First (First, not Third) U.S. Congress passing legislation extending the laws to Rhode Island, two weeks after it had ratified. Of course, had Rhode Island already been a member of the Union, it would have been nothing other than a ridiculous farce for the Congress to single out Rhode Island and extend the laws to it. The laws would, as a member of the Union, quite obviously, already apply to it.

 

[unionblue]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few historical facts:

1. The new Union went into effect March 4, 1789
2. Ratification of the Constitution was required to join the Union
3. Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until May 29, 1790
4. Rhode Island had no U.S. Senators before May 29, 1790
5. Rhode Island had no U.S. Congressman before May 29, 1790
6. Rhode Island was outside the Union, as an independent Republic, between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790

No historical fabrications, from any source, can possibly contradict those historical fact.

PS- Why did the Senate in the First (First, not third) U.S. Congress announce that it had eleven, not thirteen, members?

Rhode Island is not the beginning nor the end of the argument that the United States under the AOC did not secede from such Articles, but instead went from one form of government to another.

That Rhode Island lagged behind in it's realization that they truly were one of the United States, is recorded and their sudden realization that they were all along.

Unionblue

 

[Duncan]

Rhode Island is not the beginning nor the end of the argument that the United States under the AOC did not secede from such Articles, but instead went from one form of government to another.

That Rhode Island lagged behind in it's realization that they truly were one of the United States, is recorded and their sudden realization that they were all along.

Unionblue

 

[trice]

So, a League of States and a Union of People are, it turns out, the exact same thing!! Who knew?

The United States of America has existed legally as a nation since 1776. There is no doubt of that fact. The United States government itself proclaims it to be true. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained it. If you are trying to claim something else is true, you are simply wrong in your belief.

1. In the beginning of that period, the existence of the United States was based on a claim not yet proven, the Declaration of Independence. If the rebels had lost the war, that claim would have been shown to be a farce. Many of the rebels would probably have been hung and history would laugh at their efforts -- but the American rebels won the Revolutionary War and did establish the United States of America. This is why United States law recognizes July 4, 1776 as the birth of the nation. The exact organization of the United States was not yet specified.
2. As part of their struggle, the 13 rebellious colonies found it expedient and necessary to combine more cohesively under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This is still the same nation as the United States of America from 1776 onward. It is now officially organized as both a Confederation and a Union (two very different things in the study of International Law).
3. Finding the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to be too weak and inefficient to use, the nation decided to make a change, a major change. They found the Confederation part was the problem (a common experience in history) and wanted to form a stronger, "more perfect" Union. This leads to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and the writing of the Constitution. The form of government would no longer be a confederation; they replaced it with something completely new and unknown, the world's first Federal Republic. The Constitution itself tells you they want to form "a more perfect Union", not a new one.
4. In complete accord with the law of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the Congress debated the new Constitution and decided to send it on to the states for ratification. This cannot surprise us because 34 of the men who signed the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention were also members of the Congress receiving and approving the Constitution.
5. The States then ratified it over the next 31 months (which is less than the 39+ months the states took to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union); given the times and conditions this is a very reasonable time-frame.
6. The United States of America never dissolves. The United States of America never comes to an end. All it is doing is re-organizing the structure and rules, the law it operates under. The United States of America remains. The Union remains. The confederated government structure is replaced with the Federal structure we have now.

 

[Duncan]

View attachment 348702

Odd, Rhode Island, two weeks after it ratified and entered the union, was singled out among all thirteen states to have the existing laws extended to it. Oh, that's right. That's because when it was out of the Union, the laws didn't apply to it.

 

[Andersonh1]

That Rhode Island lagged behind in it's realization that they truly were one of the United States, is recorded and their sudden realization that they were all along.

I'm sorry, this is just not factual. It wasn't a "realization", it was a decision to join, legally and constitutionally. Had they not ratified, they would have remained independent and outside the Union.

 

[Duncan]

The United States of America has existed legally as a nation since 1776. There is no doubt of that fact. The United States government itself proclaims it to be true. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained it. If you are trying to claim something else is true, you are simply wrong in your belief.

1. In the beginning of that period, the existence of the United States was based on a claim not yet proven, the Declaration of Independence. If the rebels had lost the war, that claim would have been shown to be a farce. Many of the rebels would probably have been hung and history would laugh at their efforts -- but the American rebels won the Revolutionary War and did establish the United States of America. This is why United States law recognizes July 4, 1776 as the birth of the nation. The exact organization of the United States was not yet specified.
2. As part of their struggle, the 13 rebellious colonies found it expedient and necessary to combine more cohesively under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This is still the same nation as the United States of America from 1776 onward. It is now officially organized as both a Confederation and a Union (two very different things in the study of International Law).
3. Finding the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to be too weak and inefficient to use, the nation decided to make a change, a major change. They found the Confederation part was the problem (a common experience in history) and wanted to form a stronger, "more perfect" Union. This leads to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and the writing of the Constitution. The form of government would no longer be a confederation; they replaced it with something completely new and unknown, the world's first Federal Republic. The Constitution itself tells you they want to form "a more perfect Union", not a new one.
4. In complete accord with the law of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the Congress debated the new Constitution and decided to send it on to the states for ratification. This cannot surprise us because 34 of the men who signed the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention were also members of the Congress receiving and approving the Constitution.
5. The States then ratified it over the next 31 months (which is less than the 39+ months the states took to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union); given the times and conditions this is a very reasonable time-frame.
6. The United States of America never dissolves. The United States of America never comes to an end. All it is doing is re-organizing the structure and rules, the law it operates under. The United States of America remains. The Union remains. The confederated government structure is replaced with the Federal structure we have now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly don't know what think you see here. Forget all those meaningless general remarks and look at the historical facts as they are, not as you so desperately want them to be.

PS- Who were the Rhode Island Senators between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790? Name them both please. Oh, and name its Congressman for that time period as well.

 

[Joshism]

If Rhode Island was out of the Union did they attempt to exchange ambassadors with the USA? Did the US collect tariffs when goods moved from Rhode Island to Connecticut? Did the governor of the state declare the independence of the Republic of Rhode Island?

I see RI as essentially being on suspension pending their ratification.

Secession is an active choice. Rhode Island's behavior was passive - much hemming and hawing about whether to agree to the new club rules.

 

[Duncan]

And yet oddly, Founding Father and then Vice President (later President) John Adams made no mention of Rhode Island being "on suspension pending ratification". In fact, no one ever said anything like that (who, exactly, put them on "suspension"). What an absurd idea. However, what Founding Father and then Vice President John Adams did say, explicitly, was that Rhode Islanders were foreigners:

"if the convention should reject the constitution, or adjourn without ratifying it, Congress will probably find it necessary to treat them as they are, as foreigners, and execute all the laws to them as such.”

But in all fairness to John Adams, he was only going to treat them as foreigners because, well, they were outside the union and were foreigners.

PS- Ratification is an active choice. And the Rhode Islanders rejected it in favor of Independence for 13 months. Just ask Rhode Island Historian Laureate Patrick Conley. Or ask Yale Constitutional Scholar Akhil Amar. They'll both tell you so. Emphatically.

 

[unionblue]

I'm sorry, this is just not factual. It wasn't a "realization", it was a decision to join, legally and constitutionally. Had they not ratified, they would have remained independent and outside the Union.

The point is, it doesn't matter if Rhode Island was located on the Moon or it's eventual realization about reality, the sequence of events of the United States going from the AOC to the Constitution was not realized by the process of secession, unilateral or otherwise.

 

[Andersonh1]

The point is, it doesn't matter if Rhode Island was located on the Moon or it's eventual realization about reality, the sequence of events of the United States going from the AOC to the Constitution was not realized by the process of secession, unilateral or otherwise.

In the sense that the other states left them behind, forcing them to either go it alone or join, sure. They didn't so much leave the Union as the Union left them.