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

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
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.
No, my post is simply a description of what actually happened. As I have said before, no one can show a moment where Rhode Island was ever out of the Union -- and when forced to decide what they wanted, they chose to remain in the Union and ratify the Constitution.

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.
Why do you think this is meaningful? Rhode Island chose not to participate while avoiding a decision on the Constitution, so they neither appointed nor elected anyone to send.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
No, my post is simply a description of what actually happened. As I have said before, no one can show a moment where Rhode Island was ever out of the Union -- and when forced to decide what they wanted, they chose to remain in the Union and ratify the Constitution.



Why do you think this is meaningful? Rhode Island chose not to participate while avoiding a decision on the Constitution, so they neither appointed nor elected anyone to send.

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

"they chose to remain in the Union and ratify the Constitution."

Very revealing comment. Because as you have repeatedly said, quite clearly and quite emphatically, that ratification or not, they were never out of the Union. Why then, would their ratification keep them in a Union they were already in? Know it or not, admit it or not, you have just conceded the point.

And as I have said, and as you have just conceded, Rhode Island was, without any question at all, outside the union every single nanosecond between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790. And no one, absolutely no one, can demonstrate otherwise.
 
Last edited:

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"they chose to remain in the Union and ratify the Constitution."

Very revealing comment. Because as you have repeatedly said, quite clearly and quite emphatically, that ratification or not, they were never out of the Union. Why then, would their ratification keep them in a Union they were already in? Know it or not, admit it or not, you have just conceded the point.

And as I have said, and as you have just conceded, Rhode Island was, without any question at all, outside the union every single nanosecond between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1790. And no one, absolutely no one, can demonstrate otherwise.
I have no idea why you are talking this way. In mid-May of 1790 the Rhode Island Ratification Convention was about to begin its' second session. The US Senate in New York was talking about treating Rhode Island as a foreign country if they did not ratify (which would have meant bad things for the Rhode Island economy, which was wobbling badly through mismanagement). The Governor of Rhode Island was writing to President Washington, imploring him to take no action and do what he could to defeat that Senate bill, because Rhode Island was about to to ratify and wanted to remain a part of the United States.

Granted, if the Governor's letter is to be our guide, the politicians in Rhode Island in those days appear to have been is a very strange state of mind. Here's a few sentences from a long, really long
"... But I mean not to Trouble your your Excellency with an account in detail of the Circumstances which have led Step by Step, to our present unhappy Situation—Was I to undertake it, your Excellency would behold the Picture of a People, who from being respectable in themselves, by their Struggles in party, have been reduced into a Political situation so uncommon & peculiar, and of such irreconciliably varying and jarring interests, that to a benevolent and philosophic mind particularly informed of the Circumstances, they would appear rather to deserve the Mantle of Charity, than the Obloquy of Reproach, and to merrit pity rather than resentment or contempt. The Conduct of the Legislature respecting the New Constitution is a proof more of Indecision of Council, than of Refractoriness of Disposition. ..."

Newly-elected Governor Fenner was writing about a Report in Congress recommending action, generated by a Committee made up of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Roger Ellsworth, Robert Morris, Ralph Izard, and Pierce Butler “to consider what provisions will be proper for Congress to make, in the present session, respecting the State of Rhode-Island.” This is what Govenor Fenner was writing about. His letter was dated May 20, and he did not know then that the Senate had passed on May 18th a bill named: “An Act to prevent bringing goods, wares and merchandizes from the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, into the United States, and to authorize a demand of money from the said State”. The United States has not tossed Rhode Island out of the Union yet here on May 18th, 1790 -- but they are threatening to do so. Rhode Island hasn't left yet on May 20th, 1790 -- but they are recognizing that they don't want to leave.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
I have no idea why you are talking this way. In mid-May of 1790 the Rhode Island Ratification Convention was about to begin its' second session. The US Senate in New York was talking about treating Rhode Island as a foreign country if they did not ratify (which would have meant bad things for the Rhode Island economy, which was wobbling badly through mismanagement). The Governor of Rhode Island was writing to President Washington, imploring him to take no action and do what he could to defeat that Senate bill, because Rhode Island was about to to ratify and wanted to remain a part of the United States.

Granted, if the Governor's letter is to be our guide, the politicians in Rhode Island in those days appear to have been is a very strange state of mind. Here's a few sentences from a long, really long
"... But I mean not to Trouble your your Excellency with an account in detail of the Circumstances which have led Step by Step, to our present unhappy Situation—Was I to undertake it, your Excellency would behold the Picture of a People, who from being respectable in themselves, by their Struggles in party, have been reduced into a Political situation so uncommon & peculiar, and of such irreconciliably varying and jarring interests, that to a benevolent and philosophic mind particularly informed of the Circumstances, they would appear rather to deserve the Mantle of Charity, than the Obloquy of Reproach, and to merrit pity rather than resentment or contempt. The Conduct of the Legislature respecting the New Constitution is a proof more of Indecision of Council, than of Refractoriness of Disposition. ..."

Newly-elected Governor Fenner was writing about a Report in Congress recommending action, generated by a Committee made up of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Roger Ellsworth, Robert Morris, Ralph Izard, and Pierce Butler “to consider what provisions will be proper for Congress to make, in the present session, respecting the State of Rhode-Island.” This is what Govenor Fenner was writing about. His letter was dated May 20, and he did not know then that the Senate had passed on May 18th a bill named: “An Act to prevent bringing goods, wares and merchandizes from the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, into the United States, and to authorize a demand of money from the said State”. The United States has not tossed Rhode Island out of the Union yet here on May 18th, 1790 -- but they are threatening to do so. Rhode Island hasn't left yet on May 20th, 1790 -- but they are recognizing that they don't want to leave.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United States has not tossed Rhode Island out of the Union yet here on May 18th, 1790"

The United States never tossed Rhode Island out of the Union. There is no constitutional authority anywhere to "toss" a state out of the Union. But after March 4, 1789, by virtue of it decision to decline ratification and remain an Independent Republic, it was never in the Union until it ratified. Again, there is no need to ratify anything if you are already in the Union and can never get out.

"The US Senate in New York was talking about treating Rhode Island as a foreign country if they did not ratify"

By what authority would New York be able to treat a bona fide member of the Union as a foreign country? That sounds treasonous. And again, why all this talk about ratification if Rhode Island was already in the Union?

PS- And what were the names of those Rhode Island Senators again?
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
"The United States has not tossed Rhode Island out of the Union yet here on May 18th, 1790"

The United States never tossed Rhode Island out of the Union. There is no constitutional authority anywhere to "toss" a state out of the Union. But after March 4, 1789, by virtue of it decision to decline ratification and remain an Independent Republic, it was never in the Union until it ratified. Again, there is no need to ratify anything if you are already in the Union and can never get out.
From this, I see that you are saying that Rhode Island was definitely not tossed out of the United States by the other States.

All that leaves is Rhode Island deciding to leave the Union themselves, so when is it you say the State of Rhode Island voted to leave the Union

"The US Senate in New York was talking about treating Rhode Island as a foreign country if they did not ratify"
By what authority would New York be able to treat a bona fide member of the Union as a foreign country? That sounds treasonous.
Strangely, when I said "The US Senate in New York", I actually meant the US Senate, which was meeting in New York -- not the State of New York. The Senate can talk about anything it wants to talk about and usually does.

It is also not "treasonous" specifically because the Founders of the United States put the definition of Treason directly into the Constitution -- making it probably the narrowest and most difficult to prove of any in the world. They had experienced the abuse of that term under the Crown and were determined to prevent it from happening in the United States.

And again, why all this talk about ratification if Rhode Island was already in the Union?
Gee, let's guess: perhaps because they were ratifying the Constitution as the new governing law for the existing Union, not ratifying their membership in the Union?

PS- And what were the names of those Rhode Island Senators again?
Already asked and answered. You can avoid all this repetitive posting and questioning by reviewing what is said to you.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
From this, I see that you are saying that Rhode Island was definitely not tossed out of the United States by the other States.

Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, Rhode Island was not "tossed out" of the Union. It left it voluntarily, as did North Carolina.

All that leaves is Rhode Island deciding to leave the Union themselves, so when is it you say the State of Rhode Island voted to leave the Union

Actually, what it leaves is Rhode Island deciding to leave the Union as a function of its refusal to ratify the Constitution and join the new union which commenced on March 4th, 1789. When it ratified on May 29, 1790, it entered the Union. And not a nanosecond before.

Strangely, when I said "The US Senate in New York", I actually meant the US Senate, which was meeting in New York -- not the State of New York. The Senate can talk about anything it wants to talk about and usually does.

Very amusing dodge. But you’re still left with the irrefutable fact that the Senate has no authority, none whatsoever, to treat a member of the Union as a foreign state. That you think they do is remarkable. And the historical truth is that the Senate had decided it would no longer demonstrate magnanimity toward its former sister state, because that state was now, in fact, an antagonizing and recalcitrant foreign republic. And the fact that Rhode Island was a foreign republic is the basis for the Senate threatening to treat them like one.

It is also not "treasonous" specifically because the Founders of the United States put the definition of Treason directly into the Constitution -- making it probably the narrowest and most difficult to prove of any in the world. They had experienced the abuse of that term under the Crown and were determined to prevent it from happening in the United States.

Not having it. I explicitly and purposely said it “sounds treasonous” to characterize the inappropriate level of hostility directed to what was, according to you, a “member” of the union. I never said that it was treasonous. Never. Nice try though. By the way, do you know what else is not included in the constitutional definition of treason? Yup, you guessed it, secession.

Gee, let's guess: perhaps because they were ratifying the Constitution as the new governing law for the existing Union, not ratifying their membership in the Union?

Well golly gee, let's think about this. Oh, I know. Rhode Island ratified to gain admission to the Union so it would then be entitled to Congressional representation, like all the other members of the Union. No ratification? Then not a member of the Union, and no congressional representation. Plain and simple. And that governing law? It had already been firmly established as the Supreme Law of the Land, and was in full force, whether Rhode Island ratified it or not. But here's the thing; it was only the governing law for members of the Union, members that had ratified. For independent federal republics like Rhode Island, it meant nothing.

Already asked and answered. You can avoid all this repetitive posting and questioning by reviewing what is said to you.

Nope. You still have not provided the name of either Senator or the Congressman from Rhode Island for the period between March, 4, 1789, and May, 29, 1790. But in all fairness, that's only because you can't. By the way, if you have any further doubts about all of this, below is the contact information, taken from his public website, for Patrick Conley, the Historian Laureate of Rhode Island. Go ahead and reach out to him, he'll straighten it all out for you.


Contact Pat Conley at:

The Rhode Island Publications Society

Tel. 401-272-1776
Fax: 401-273-1791
http://ripublications.org

Rhode Island Publications Society
1445 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 203
East Providence, RI 02915

Providence Piers
200 Allens Ave, Suite #1
Providence, RI 02903
Phone (401) 274-1787
Fax (401) 461-1776
[email protected]
www.providencepiers.com

Email: [email protected]
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
From this, I see that you are saying that Rhode Island was definitely not tossed out of the United States by the other States.
Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, Rhode Island was not "tossed out" of the Union. It left it voluntarily, as did North Carolina.
Good. This is you saying "Absolutely, positively, without a doubt" that the United States did not evict Rhode Island from the Union.

All that leaves is Rhode Island deciding to leave the Union themselves, so when is it you say the State of Rhode Island voted to leave the Union
Actually, what it leaves is Rhode Island deciding to leave the Union as a function of its refusal to ratify the Constitution and join the new union which commenced on March 4th, 1789. When it ratified on May 29, 1790, it entered the Union. And not a nanosecond before.
This, however, looks like what the law would call "pure puffery" -- a claim that is so obviously unreal that no one should believe it.

You are saying that Rhode Island was out of the Union -- but never notified the United States government of that fact -- and yet did stay in the Union that is the United States without ever being re-admitted. As Robby the Robot often said in the TV series "Lost in Space": "It does not compute!"
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Good. This is you saying "Absolutely, positively, without a doubt" that the United States did not evict Rhode Island from the Union.





This, however, looks like what the law would call "pure puffery" -- a claim that is so obviously unreal that no one should believe it.

You are saying that Rhode Island was out of the Union -- but never notified the United States government of that fact -- and yet did stay in the Union that is the United States without ever being re-admitted. As Robby the Robot often said in the TV series "Lost in Space": "It does not compute!"
I think the confusion comes about because most people don't realize there is a difference between the Union and the system of government that the Union operates under.

The Union came into being on July, 4th 1776. It operated under the continental congress who actually named the nation "The United States of America" on Sept 9, 1776. It operated under the continental congress from that date until the adoption of the articles of confederation beginning March 1 1781. These were titled "The articles of confederation and perpetual Union". Notice it does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and Union. The articles were not intended to be perpetual but the Union was.

We operated under the AoC until the adoption of the constitution March 4, 1789. So until Rhode Island adopted the constitution they were still outside of the constitution but still a part of the perpetual Union.

Now obviously the rest of the Union did not like Rhode Islands status and decided to exert pressure on her to come under the constitution. Which she did. It would be an interesting what if book to see just how far the rest of the Union would have gone to make her subject to the constitution.

If we think of America as a computer then the style of governments are the operating systems. America upgraded from the continental congress to the AoC to the Constitution but The United States of America continued to exist through all of those.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
I think the confusion comes about because most people don't realize there is a difference between the Union and the system of government that the Union operates under.

The Union came into being on July, 4th 1776. It operated under the continental congress who actually named the nation "The United States of America" on Sept 9, 1776. It operated under the continental congress from that date until the adoption of the articles of confederation beginning March 1 1781. These were titled "The articles of confederation and perpetual Union". Notice it does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and Union. The articles were not intended to be perpetual but the Union was.

We operated under the AoC until the adoption of the constitution March 4, 1789. So until Rhode Island adopted the constitution they were still outside of the constitution but still a part of the perpetual Union.

Now obviously the rest of the Union did not like Rhode Islands status and decided to exert pressure on her to come under the constitution. Which she did. It would be an interesting what if book to see just how far the rest of the Union would have gone to make her subject to the constitution.

If we think of America as a computer then the style of governments are the operating systems. America upgraded from the continental congress to the AoC to the Constitution but The United States of America continued to exist through all of those.
Yes, that is a pretty accurate description. States change their governing law often and do not go out of existence when they do. The State of South Carolina, for example, is currently on its' seventh constitution ( 1776, 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865, 1868, 1895) -- they did not vanish from existence six times when they made changes.

People also do not realize that a confederation and a union are two very different things in the study of International Law, and that the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union tell us that this country was both of them.

There are some things to quibble about in the new Constitution from the viewpoint of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Article VII of the Constitution does look odd/unusual if you look at Article XIII in the Articles.
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Arguably, Article VII in the Constitution can be claimed to be a violation of that to some degree -- not enough to invalidate the Constitution itself, but something that could be used to argue against the ratification process. The Articles actually contain a process by which Rhode Island could have tried to get a judicial ruling on this. Rhode Island never attempted to use it.

That is perfectly understandable: the judicial process in the Articles looks like it was designed by Rube Goldberg and intended to throw a bunch of wrenches into any proceeding. No one should be surprised by that -- the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were inadequate and close to unworkable -- which is exactly why they were being replaced.

In real life, this issue became moot when Rhode Island ratified. On May 29th of 1790 all 13 States have ratified the Constitution, which means the process in Article XIII has been correctly followed and the new Constitution is now the law of the land. From that point on, there is no argument to be made.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Good. This is you saying "Absolutely, positively, without a doubt" that the United States did not evict Rhode Island from the Union.





This, however, looks like what the law would call "pure puffery" -- a claim that is so obviously unreal that no one should believe it.

You are saying that Rhode Island was out of the Union -- but never notified the United States government of that fact -- and yet did stay in the Union that is the United States without ever being re-admitted. As Robby the Robot often said in the TV series "Lost in Space": "It does not compute!"

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

Your remarks don't really make any sense, and I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The best I can discern is that you are angry and dissatisfied with the manner by which the Union under the AoC was dissolved and the new Union under the Constitution *formed and established*. I can't help you with that, but that does not alter the historical truth of the matter. To that end, and because I am having such a ball with this, I have a few more sources for you to ignore and disregard. The first is an article written by historian and author Carol Sue Humphrey, which appeared in the Journal of Rhode Island History in May of 1994. It is entitled; "The Rhode Island Pillar": Rhode Island Newspapers and the Ratification of the Constitution Rhode Island. A few passages from the article:

"Only North Carolina and Rhode Island held out for any length of time. 'When the new government took effect in April, 1789, those two states remained outside the Union"

and

"what worried Rhode Island newspaper writers the most was the future that faced the state
if it remained outside the union"

and

"The newspapers would not let the Constitution be forgotten, and thus they helped keep the debate going until Rhode Island finally accepted the new government and rejoined the Union"

And a few more from varied sources:

States entering the Union during a President's term
https://www.presidentsusa.net/statesunion.html

George Washington
  • North Carolina
    Rhode Island

    Vermont
    Kentucky
    Tennessee

and

Historical Highlights

Rhode Island’s Ratification of the Constitution

On this date, Rhode Island became the 13th state to enter the Union after ratifying the Constitution.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/Rhode-Island-s-Ratification-of-the-Constitution/#:~:text=



*The Preamble says the Union was "formed and established". How can a union that already existed be "formed and established" Weird, huh?

PS- I take it from your comments that you have not yet reached out to Rhode Island Historian Laureate Patrick Conley. Don't be shy, just send an email. He might just reply, who knows?


PPS- Lots, lots more to follow.
 
Last edited:

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
I think the confusion comes about because most people don't realize there is a difference between the Union and the system of government that the Union operates under.

The Union came into being on July, 4th 1776. It operated under the continental congress who actually named the nation "The United States of America" on Sept 9, 1776. It operated under the continental congress from that date until the adoption of the articles of confederation beginning March 1 1781. These were titled "The articles of confederation and perpetual Union". Notice it does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and Union. The articles were not intended to be perpetual but the Union was.

We operated under the AoC until the adoption of the constitution March 4, 1789. So until Rhode Island adopted the constitution they were still outside of the constitution but still a part of the perpetual Union.

Now obviously the rest of the Union did not like Rhode Islands status and decided to exert pressure on her to come under the constitution. Which she did. It would be an interesting what if book to see just how far the rest of the Union would have gone to make her subject to the constitution.

If we think of America as a computer then the style of governments are the operating systems. America upgraded from the continental congress to the AoC to the Constitution but The United States of America continued to exist through all of those.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The simple historical truth of the matter can easily be found within a plethora of sources, including the records of The North Carolina Ratifying Convention. In Volume IV of Elliot's Debates, a spirited debate among the delegates is recorded. The debate topic, of course, is whether North Carolina should ratify the Constitution and thereby join the Union, or refuse to ratify and remain outside the Union. Several of the delegates offered opinions of course, and there were myriad references to the implications of staying out of the Union. To begin, I'll offer only a few comments, including one from James Iredell, who later went on to become one of the first Justices of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. IREDELL continued: If we do not adopt, we are no longer in the Union

Mr. WILLIE JONES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman last up has mentioned the resolution of Congress now lying before us, and the act of Assembly under which we met here, which says that we should deliberate and determine on the Constitution. What is to be inferred from that? Are we to ratify it at all events? Have we not an equal right to reject? We do not determine by neither rejecting nor adopting. It is objected we shall be out of the Union. So I wish to be. We are left at liberty to come in at any time.

Gov. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that, if the motion made yesterday, by the gentleman from Halifax, be adopted, it will not answer the intention of the people. It determines nothing with respect to the Constitution. We were sent here to determine upon it. [Here his excellency read the resolution of the Assembly under which the Convention met.] If we do not decide upon the Constitution, we shall have nothing to report to Congress. We shall be entirely out of the Union, and stand by ourselves.


Plenty more where that came from. But once again, the idea is clear; no ratification, not a member of the Union. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your remarks don't really make any sense, and I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The best I can discern is that you are angry and dissatisfied with the manner by which the Union under the AoC was dissolved and the new Union under the Constitution *formed and established*. I can't help you with that, but that does not alter the historical truth of the matter. To that end, and because I am having such a ball with this, I have a few more sources for you to ignore and disregard. The first is an article written by historian and author Carol Sue Humphrey, which appeared in the Journal of Rhode Island History in May of 1994. It is entitled; "The Rhode Island Pillar": Rhode Island Newspapers and the Ratification of the Constitution Rhode Island. A few passages from the article:

"Only North Carolina and Rhode Island held out for any length of time. 'When the new government took effect in April, 1789, those two states remained outside the Union"

and

"what worried Rhode Island newspaper writers the most was the future that faced the state
if it remained outside the union"

and

"The newspapers would not let the Constitution be forgotten, and thus they helped keep the debate going until Rhode Island finally accepted the new government and rejoined the Union"

And a few more from varied sources:

States entering the Union during a President's term
https://www.presidentsusa.net/statesunion.html

George Washington
  • North Carolina
    Rhode Island

    Vermont
    Kentucky
    Tennessee

and

Historical Highlights

Rhode Island’s Ratification of the Constitution

On this date, Rhode Island became the 13th state to enter the Union after ratifying the Constitution.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/Rhode-Island-s-Ratification-of-the-Constitution/#:~:text=



*The Preamble says the Union was "formed and established". How can a union that already existed be "formed and established" Weird, huh?

PS- I take it from your comments that you have not yet reached out to Rhode Island Historian Laureate Patrick Conley. Don't be shy, just send an email. He might just reply, who knows?


PPS- Lots, lots more to follow.
This is really very simple. If you think Rhode Island somehow left the Union show us the documentation. I would love to see it. When and where did the State of Rhode Island officially decide to leave the United States? Be specific. Point us to the document that says so -- the official document from the State of Rhode Island. Show us what the vote was, and who voted on it. If you cannot do that, that's a nice thought you have, good for banging off the walls maybe -- but it never actually happened.

Do that and you are proven right. If you keep avoiding that, you are just talking through your hat and this is all just "pure puffery" as the lawyers would say.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
So not being a member, your view is Rhode Island could NOT secede from the AOC?

So being a member of the Union under the AoC, you agree that by ratifying the Constitution, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York all seceded from the Union under the AoC?
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
This is really very simple. If you think Rhode Island somehow left the Union show us the documentation. I would love to see it. When and where did the State of Rhode Island officially decide to leave the United States? Be specific. Point us to the document that says so -- the official document from the State of Rhode Island. Show us what the vote was, and who voted on it. If you cannot do that, that's a nice thought you have, good for banging off the walls maybe -- but it never actually happened.

Do that and you are proven right. If you keep avoiding that, you are just talking through your hat and this is all just "pure puffery" as the lawyers would say.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This matter can be settled very easily. If you think that Rhode Island ratified before May, 29, 1790, show us the ratification. I would truly, truly, love to see it. When and where did did Rhode Island officially ratify? Be specific. Point out to us the ratification that says so--the official ratification from the State of Rhode Island. Show us what the delegate count was, and who voted in favor, and who voted in opposition. If you cannot do that, well that's a nice thought you have-good for pounding the sand maybe-but it never actually happened.

Do that and you are proven right. If you keep ducking and dodging, bobbing and weaving, closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "Row, row, row, you boat," over and over again to ignore hard facts you don't like, than all you are doing is hilariously chasing your tail, as the saying goes.

PS- Did you reach out to the Rhode Island Historian Laureate yet? What did he tell you?
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This matter can be settled very easily. If you think that Rhode Island ratified before May, 29, 1790, show us the ratification. I would truly, truly, love to see it. When and where did did Rhode Island officially ratify? Be specific. Point out to us the ratification that says so--the official ratification from the State of Rhode Island. Show us what the delegate count was, and who voted in favor, and who voted in opposition. If you cannot do that, well that's a nice thought you have-good for pounding the sand maybe-but it never actually happened.

Do that and you are proven right. If you keep ducking and dodging, bobbing and weaving, closing your eyes, and putting your fingers in your eyes and singing "Row, row, row, you boat" over and over again, than all you are doing is hilariously chasing your tail, as the saying goes.
 
Last edited:

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Interesting letter from Hugh Williamson, an erudite and highly-esteemed delegate at the North Carolina ratifying Convention, to James Iredell, another highly-esteemed delegate and, as mentioned earlier, later a Supreme Court Justice. The letter was written shortly after the first North Carolina Convention failed to ratify the Constitution.

Dear sir New York [August] 23rd 1788

By Letters from sundry Correspondents it appears that North Carolina has at length thrown herself out of the Union, but she happily is not alone; The large upright and respectable State of Rhode Island is her associate.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
A very informative thread. However, in my humble opinion, this whole debate over the AOC and the constitution is moot. Once the states ratified the constitution, it was difficult to reverse the decision.

"To Alexander Hamilton

My Dear Sir Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand and I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.

The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness

James Madison
N. York Sunday Evening
July 20 1788"
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This matter can be settled very easily. If you think that Rhode Island ratified before May, 29, 1790, show us the ratification. I would truly, truly, love to see it. When and where did did Rhode Island officially ratify? Be specific. Point out to us the ratification that says so--the official ratification from the State of Rhode Island. Show us what the delegate count was, and who voted in favor, and who voted in opposition. If you cannot do that, well that's a nice thought you have-good for pounding the sand maybe-but it never actually happened.

Do that and you are proven right. If you keep ducking and dodging, bobbing and weaving, closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "Row, row, row, you boat," over and over again to ignore hard facts you don't like, than all you are doing is hilariously chasing your tail, as the saying goes.

PS- Did you reach out to the Rhode Island Historian Laureate yet? What did he tell you?
I have repeatedly said that Rhode Island ratified on this date. I have never claimed any other date. You already know this. It says nothing at all about your claim that Rhode Island deliberately and voluntarily left the Union. Why are you repeatedly dragging this red herring about when it is already asked and answered?
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
A very informative thread. However, in my humble opinion, this whole debate over the AOC and the constitution is moot. Once the states ratified the constitution, it was difficult to reverse the decision.

"To Alexander Hamilton

My Dear Sir Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand and I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.

The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness

James Madison
N. York Sunday Evening
July 20 1788"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

The obvious problem is that there is no such language in the Constitution. In fact, that letter is proof positive that secession is perfectly lawful. Because it is clear that the concept of perpetuity was not overlooked, and that the framers were perfectly capable of incorporating it into the Constitution if they wanted it there. And indeed, if that language was in the Constitution, or if it was in any of the State ratifications, there would be an argument. Moreoveor, those opposing secession would point it out instantly. But there is no such language in the Constitution. Nor is it in any of the State ratifications. It most certainly is not.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top