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

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

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
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?

"I have repeatedly said that Rhode Island ratified on this date. I have never claimed any other date."

Good. Then that is settled.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
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.
...
Yes, this is exactly the legal situation: once all 13 States have ratified, the Constitution is the law of the land.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
"I have repeatedly said that Rhode Island ratified on this date. I have never claimed any other date."

Good. Then that is settled.
As it has been for many, many posts. Now, when exactly is it that you claim Rhode Island voluntarily left the Union and what is the specific official government act by which they did it? I await your response.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
As it has been for many, many posts. Now, when exactly is it that you claim Rhode Island voluntarily left the Union and what is the specific official government act by which they did it? I await your response.

Tell me again who the Senators and Congressman were for Rhode Island between March 4, 1789, and May 29, 1970? I await your reply.

PS- What did Rhode Island's Historian Laureate tell you? Did you contact him yet? I await your reply.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
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?
Isn't what I asked.

Did Rhode Island secede from the AOC?

I'll make it easy. Did any of the States under the AOC secede from those Articles when they ratified the Constitution?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Isn't what I asked.

Did Rhode Island secede from the AOC?

I'll make it easy. Did any of the States under the AOC secede from those Articles when they ratified the Constitution?

That's not what I asked you. What I really wanted to know is whether or nor a state could be under both the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution at the same time.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I see you've chosen to answer a question with a question. That means you don't have the answer.
And I see you ignored answer my original question by asking a question, and now wish to imply something entirely without fact in your above post.

Which means I have an answer you do not like.

Timing is everything.

Misdirection is nothing.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Here's my answer. None of them seceded from the United States whether under the AOC or the Constitution.

Here's my answer. At a minimum nine of them seceded from the Union under the AoC in order to enter the new Union under the Constitution.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
And I see you ignored answer my original question by asking a question, and now wish to imply something entirely without fact in your above post.

Which means I have an answer you do not like.

Timing is everything.

Misdirection is nothing.

Sadly, it looks very much like you thoroughly ignored my original question by asking a question, and now wish to imply something entirely without fact in your above post.

Which means I have an answer you do not like. I mean really don't like

Indeed, timing is everything.

And indeed again, misdirection is nothing.

Two can play at this game.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Sadly, it looks very much like you thoroughly ignored my original question by asking a question, and now wish to imply something entirely without fact in your above post.

Which means I have an answer you do not like. I mean really don't like

Indeed, timing is everything.

And indeed again, misdirection is nothing.

Two can play at this game.
No, only one can keep score.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no such language in the Constitution.
The obvious problem here is that States were warned that the constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

Why restate the obvious
in the constitution?

Framers (at least James Madison) were very specific that they would not include a clause in the constitution that would allow a state to unilaterally withdraw from the Union on a whim since a state was required to adopt the constitution forever. At the same time, Madison speculated that only the Congress that had the power to admit a new state also had the power to expel a state from the Union. Hence, unilateral secession of 1860-61 has never been in the constitution.

Hence Virginia was in this situation in 1861.

"…I do not believe that it [unilateral secession] is a constitutional measure…I looked for it in vain in the Constitution of the United States itself. I think that the framers of that Constitution, if they had intended the doctrine to be there, would have put it in that instrument."

George Baylor from Augusta County, Virginia
At the Virginia Secession Convention, March 1, 1861

The framers did not include a clause for unilateral secession not because they thought it was a perfectly fine measure, but because it was not supposed to happen.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The obvious problem here is that States were warned that the constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

Why restate the obvious
in the constitution?

Framers (at least James Madison) were very specific that they would not include a clause in the constitution that would allow a state to unilaterally withdraw from the Union on a whim since a state was required to adopt the constitution forever. At the same time, Madison speculated that only the Congress that had the power to admit a new state also had the power to expel a state from the Union. Hence, unilateral secession of 1860-61 has never been in the constitution.

Hence Virginia was in this situation in 1861.

"…I do not believe that it [unilateral secession] is a constitutional measure…I looked for it in vain in the Constitution of the United States itself. I think that the framers of that Constitution, if they had intended the doctrine to be there, would have put it in that instrument."

George Baylor from Augusta County, Virginia
At the Virginia Secession Convention, March 1, 1861

The framers did not include a clause for unilateral secession not because they thought it was a perfectly fine measure, but because it was not supposed to happen.

Why restate the obvious in the constitution?

You mean like the 1st amendment? Talk about restating the obvious. Gee, I wonder why they did that? And maybe, just maybe, to avoid a war that killed 650,000 Americans? Is that a good enough reason to "restate the obvious"? And what is not prohibited to the states, like secession, is a reserved power of the states, to be exercised by them at their discretion.

Anyway, there is nothing obvious about it. And it was never stated, so it certainly cannot be "restated". The simple fact is that that language is not in the Constitution, it is therefore not the supreme law of the land. Hence, the specific clause in Virginia's ratification explicitly providing for secession;

"the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Why restate the obvious in the constitution?

Anyway, there is nothing obvious about it. And it was never stated, so it certainly cannot be "restated".
It is quite obvious to me when one of prominent framers at the time said the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. Again why restate the obvious in the constitution? Especially when the constitution which created a more perfect Union replaced the AOC which had created a Perpetual Union.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
It is quite obvious to me when one of prominent framers at the time said the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. Again why restate the obvious in the constitution? Especially when the constitution which created a more perfect Union replaced the AOC which created a Perpetual Union.

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

"Especially when the constitution which created a more perfect Union replaced the AOC which created a Perpetual Union."

Did you read what you wrote? If a Union is perpetual, it can't be replaced by another Union, can it? The idea of a "perpetual" union is laughable. Especially when the "perpetual" union under the AOC lasted about 8 years (as you have correctly observed)

"It is quite obvious to me when one of prominent framers at the time said the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. "

Then you should have no trouble, none whatsoever, point out that language in the Constitution. If you can't find it, I'm pretty sure it's right next to the language which prohibits secession.
Again why restate the obvious in the constitution?

Because it was never stated and it is not at all obvious.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
"the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"
So it was the People of the United States who gave the power through the constitution to the United States government, not the individual states.

Did the people of the United States give a permission to South Carolina & Virginia to leave from the US?
Where is the mechanism for this process in the Constitution?
What kind of injury or oppression that South Carolina & Virginia suffered?
Why didn't seceding states take the issue of unilateral secession to the Supreme Court ?

It doesn't seem like fire-eaters and secessionists had sound arguments. Unilateral secession was not in the constitution. There was no mechanism for such procedures as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top