Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 4CJ

Those two states which did not ratify and join the new government were treated no differently than they had been under the old. They were not kicked out of the Union, their citizens did not lose their citizenship as Americans. They had no tariffs imposed, had no foreign policy seperate from the US, had no navy, no ministers in foreign courts, used no other money.

It is typical of you to take a temporary anomaly and build your case on it. No one believed North Carolina and Rhode Island would not soon take part in the new governmental structure of the Union.

And the five states at the Founding did not independently act wrt military matters or diplomatic. They NEVER considered themselves to be independent nations or outside the newly forming Union.


488 posted on 03/16/2006 2:23:12 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies ]


To: justshutupandtakeit
can you PROVE any of that ludicrous concoction of BILGE & LIES???

free dixie,sw

489 posted on 03/16/2006 2:26:52 PM PST by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]

To: justshutupandtakeit
No one believed North Carolina and Rhode Island would not soon take part in the new governmental structure of the Union.

Sure they did. Regulations were drawn, to govern trade between them and the ratifying States, in case they decided not to come into the Union. Those regulations have been posted to you and discussed, and we won't let you ignore the fact that, contrary you, the other States did contemplate the possibility that not all 13 of the original States would ratify.

As much as you lie-and-deny it, the States were free to ratify, or not to ratify. They were free to join in or stay out, whatever they preferred. God, don't you just hate it, bully-boy?

Oh, and by the way -- bite me.

494 posted on 03/16/2006 2:32:20 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]

To: justshutupandtakeit; lentulusgracchus
Those two states which did not ratify and join the new government were treated no differently than they had been under the old.

With the ratification of the ninth state, a NEW union was formed. The non-aceding members were no longer united with those ratifying the Constitution. It's a very simple concept, either the nine states seceded from the AoC or they didn't. Madison says they did in the Federalist Papers. If they didn't - as you claim - then the Constitution was never legally ratified - since in your view a state cannot secede from the union. You waver back and forth with LEGAL and metaphysical concepts, again, it's quite simple. Union, or the state of being united, is a concept, and there is nothing on God's green earth that can force those once united by come common bond to remain so .

LG hinted at it above, perpetual does NOT mean permanent - it means "without a stated/delineated end", and that entire concept of a perpetual union of 13 members was tossed to the wayside in order to craft a NEW union of those more willing to work together for their MUTUAL benefit - Rhode Island and Providence Plantations had repeatedly refused to agreements, and refused to send delegates to Philadelphia. By the terms of the AoC, that made the convention illegal, but it didn't stop Madison, Hamilton, Chase, Morris, Pinckney or anyone else. Of the 70 invitees, only 54 attended, and then 11 delegates left for various reasons - notably New York delegates Yates and Lansing, 4 others refused to sign (Mason, Gerry , Randolph and and Luther Martin), leaving 39 delegates to sign. Two states, New York and Rhode Island were left without a vote in convention (RI because they refused to send delegates).

Not treated any differently? They had no representation in Congress did they? Congress debated legislation that would enact tariffs against her, threatened to blockade her ports, Hamilton wanted to coerce (wink wink) her to join. Representative John Page of Virginia, on 26 May 1790 spoke in protest against a bill passed by the Senate designed to coerce Rhode Island into submission:

"[S]he [England], in her rage, to answer her revenge, and to extend her despotic power over America, shut up the port of Boston, hoping to starve into submission her virtuous citizens. Must not Rhode Islanders, like the Bostonians, detest the cruel attempt? ... [G]o on with the bill, and you force her to smuggle, nay, perhaps to be your enemy forever. ... It would be thought madness there to interdict all commercial intercourse ... It would I believe too, be looked upon as equal to a declaration of war."

John Collins, Governor of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations wrote President Washington, "[w]e are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States."

It is typical of you to take a temporary anomaly and build your case on it. No one believed North Carolina and Rhode Island would not soon take part in the new governmental structure of the Union.

That's why they provided for a union of NINE states, because they were sure that all 13 would join </sarcasm>

And the five states at the Founding did not independently act wrt military matters or diplomatic. They NEVER considered themselves to be independent nations or outside the newly forming Union.

Sure they did. Five - 5 - states declared independence separately from all others. In debates ALL considered themselves independent. The Supreme Court held them to be independent. Hamilton and congress were going to blockade RI (see above). That's NOT how you treat a member of your union.

521 posted on 03/16/2006 6:16:11 PM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]

To: justshutupandtakeit; 4CJ
And the five states at the Founding did not independently act wrt military matters or diplomatic. They NEVER considered themselves to be independent nations or outside the newly forming Union.

Careful... now you're contradicting yourself.

526 posted on 03/16/2006 8:02:47 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]

To: justshutupandtakeit
And the five states at the Founding did not independently act wrt military matters or diplomatic. They NEVER considered themselves to be independent nations or outside the newly forming Union.

New Hampshire voted to raise an independent army of 2000 men and established it's own postal system. Connecticut fought the war by it's own authority (military and diplomatic). Massachusetts, South Carolina and Connecticut fitted out ships for their own navy (military). When the French ambassador's house was violated it was the State of Pennsylvania that prosecuted (diplomatic). New Hampshire issued it's own letters or marquee and reprisal (military). Numerous states had their own prize and Admiralty courts that heard cases (military and diplomatic).

Again, 5 states declared their independence (diplomatic) separately. Numerous states refused to send delegates to the first called convention, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia convention (diplomatic). The nine states agreeing to the Constitution (independently I might add) severed ties (diplomatic) with their remaining 4 (the AoC was no longer in force - it required UNANIMOUS consent for changes). All states commissioned their own officers (military). All states engaged in diplomacy with each other.

Justice Patterson stated in the US Supreme Court that New Hampshire, should she refuse to recognize the authority of Congress, should withdraw herself from the union (diplomatic).

545 posted on 03/17/2006 7:49:08 AM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson