Replies

Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.

As the great Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again. Just making crap up. When faced with actual history, you just make crap up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island

Nearly a dozen conventions failed that had been called in Rhode Island to ratify the constitution, often by wide margins; in one instance, 92 percent of the delegates voted against ratification.

As for secession, the other eleven states seceded from the existing government and union and formed a new constitutional government with eleven members.

The old government and union had only two widely seperated members left, and it was dissolved. RI and NC were not then members of the United States.

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

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; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?

Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our consti6tuents who are dissatisfied with it....

Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:

I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. 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. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...
But to return to my argument. 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; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen will then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitutyion; 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.

How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?"

The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.

When faced with the history of Vermont seceding and becoming a free and independent state via successful revolution, you just mindlessly repeat your mantra of mutual consent. A successful revolution is not mutual consent.

It is not just my opinion that Vermont joined the Union as a free and independent State, and that they achieved their free and sovereign status by successful revolution, the it is opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 US 593 (1933). You just make crap up and repeat it as a mantra.

U.S. Supreme Court
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
Vermont v. New Hampshire
No. 2, Original
Argued April 20, 21, 1933
Decided May 29, 1933
...
289 U. S. 597
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original suit brought by the State of Vermont December 8, 1915, for the determination of the boundary line between that state and the State of New Hampshire. By the amended bill of complaint, Vermont alleged that the boundary is "the thread of the channel" of the Connecticut River for its entire course, except for that part from the northerly limits of the town of Vernon, Vermont, south to the Massachusetts line where it "is the west bank of Connecticut River at low water mark." In the original bill of complaint, there was an alternative
289 U. S. 596
claim that, if this Court should be of the opinion that the boundary is not the thread, but is "the west bank of the Connecticut River," then
"such line is the westerly edge of the waters of the Connecticut River at its average and mean stage during the entire year without reference to the extraordinary freshets or extreme droughts."
New Hampshire, by its amended answer, asserts that the boundary is "at the top or westerly margin of the westerly bank of the Connecticut River and the east branch thereof."
Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the channel was based upon the following propositions: township grants made by the Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, by royal authority, between 1741 and 1764, on the west side of the Connecticut River in the territory now Vermont, were bounded by the river, which was nontidal, and carried title to its thread by virtue of the common law of England; an order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, fixing the boundary between the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire at the "western banks of the River Connecticut," thus including the territory now Vermont in the Province of New York, was nullified by the successful revolution of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants; hence the eastern boundary of the revolutionary State of Vermont was the same as the eastern limits of the township grants -- namely, the thread of the river; Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state with her boundaries those established by her revolution. Her eastern boundary was therefore the thread of the Connecticut River.
The Special Master sustained all these contentions except the last one. With respect to it, he found that Vermont had, by resolution of her Legislature of February 22, 1782, relinquished any claim to jurisdiction east of the west side of the river at low water mark, in conformity
289 U. S. 597
to a Congressional resolution of August 20, 21, 1781, prescribing terms upon which Congress would consider the admission of Vermont to the Union. In addition to the findings already indicated, the Special Master also concluded that the order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, even if not rendered ineffective by the revolution of Vermont, was not intended to recognize any rights of New Hampshire west of the west side of the river at low water; that Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the river would be defeated by her acquiescence in New Hampshire's exercise of dominion over the waters of the river even if it had not been relinquished by acceptance of the resolutions of Congress of August, 1781, and finally that, by practical construction of the two states by long usage and acquiescence, the boundary of Vermont was fixed at the low water mark on the west side of the river.
Accordingly, the Special Master found that:
"The eastern boundary of the State of Vermont upon her admission to the Union was that stated in the resolutions of Congress of August 20, and 21, 1781, and in the resolution of the Vermont Legislature of February 22, 1782, and this I find to be the low water mark on the west side of the Connecticut River."
The line of low water mark thus specified was further defined as "the point to which the river recedes at its lowest stage without reference to extreme droughts," and no exception has been taken to this definition.
...
289 U. S. 607
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
289 U. S. 608
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.