[Grand Old Partisan]

Clever, but not enough. You assume, for one thing, that the inauguration of the President marked the beginning of the United States. Prior to that, Congress and the Electoral College had already met. The Constitution went into effect the instant the ninth state ratified, so your point obout North Carolina and Rhode Island applied just as much to the tenth state to ratify before it did so. None of the states yet to ratify in any way claimed to be indepdent or outside the Union, and that's what matters in countering the position that secession from the United States was equivalent to the position of the states 10-13 prior to ratification.

States 10-13 operated in the meantime under the Articles of Confederation, meaning that no federal government could tax them and that they had a right to be represented in Congress.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] None of the states yet to ratify in any way claimed to be indepdent or outside the Union, and that's what matters in countering the position that secession from the United States was equivalent to the position of the states 10-13 prior to ratification.

9 states claimed to no longer be part of the former Union, regardless of whether the other 4 ever ratified the Constitution.

The 4 states did not have to say they were outside the union. 9 of the thirteen states had left and the government under the AoC had dissolved. The union under the AoC ceased to exist. The 4 states had not yet joined the new union. 2 states had voted NOT to join the new union.

The 9 states could not lawfully change one word of the AoC without unanimous consent. They lawfully seceded and formed a new union.