woodpusher:
"I see that you cannot identify what branch of the Federal government the States are a part of.
Your omission is telling." Your insistence on playing senseless word games is more telling.
woodpusher: "Just how does my unanswered question confirm OIFVeteran’s absurd conspiracy theory that the United States suffers from schizophrenia? "
That is a completely dishonest question, revealing some of what's going on in woodpusher's soul.
woodpusher: "Why did nobody in the Congress even question or oppose these claims by MADISON et al?"
Neither Madison nor anybody else at the time officially recognized Rhode Island as a separate & independent country.
Indeed, Madison specifically refers to it as a "state" and says it would be improper for Congress to invite the "state" to join the United States.
woodpusher: "How was the Order-in-Council recognized as nullified, and Vermont recognized as an independent state from 1777 to 1791, and Vermont recognized as having entered the Union as an independent state, with self-constituted boundaries in 1791, without it having left the Union after 1776?"
As with Rhode Island & North Carolina, Vermont was never officially recognized as a separate country by any foreign power, or by any United States authority.
Nor did Vermont seriously claim to be a separate country, and indeed joining the United States as a state was a primary reason for changing its name from "New Connecticut" to "Vermont".
But the key point in all these discussions is that changes to state or territory status & boundaries were accomplished by mutual consent, just as James Madison and the US Constitution require. ![]()
woodpusher: "I see that you cannot identify what branch of the Federal government the States are a part of. Your omission is telling." [BroJoeK] Your insistence on playing senseless word games is more telling.
I am not the one who (#403) posted:
[BroJoeK #403] OIFVeteran: "There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America."
I am not the one at a loss to explain what it means for states to be part of the government and not part of the United States. Ronald Reagan stated the obvious in his First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Your attempt to avoid explaining is understandable.
woodpusher: "Why did nobody in the Congress even question or oppose these claims by MADISON et al?" [BroJoeK #499] Neither Madison nor anybody else at the time officially recognized Rhode Island as a separate & independent country.
Nonsense.
Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,
Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:
But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.
Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:
My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island
Mr. SHERMAN considered "that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy."
Mr. MADISON considered "that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island"
How do you invite a state to join a confederacy if it is a member of said confederacy?
How does the legislature of Rhode Island reject said invitation unless it is not a member of said confederacy?
Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:
I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; . . . Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union. . . .
Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:
The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. . . . It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.
Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:
There are two states not in the union. . . . They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitution; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.
You can't handle the truth.
But the key point in all these discussions is that changes to state or territory status & boundaries were accomplished by mutual consent, just as James Madison and the US Constitution require.
Mutual consent, or as the U.S. Supreme Court put it, successful revolution.
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)
Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Art. IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries. The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.
It does not matter that the U.S. government, when there was one, did not officially recognize Vermont's independence until it entered the union. At the time of admission, and thereafter, they were officially recognized by the U.S. Government to have been previously, and at the time of admission, a free and independent state. Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3. You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied. It did not. Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Article 4, Section 3:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
The boldfaced part did not apply.