[Walter E. Williams]
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Just as the Green Mountain boys of Vermont fought for independence from New York and the AoC union. Vermont waged a successful revolution, and the Supreme Court has recognized that Vermont was not admitted as a new state formed out of territory from New York, but that it had waged a successful revolution, and had been an independent state from 1777 to 1791 when it was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.
Was the state of New York dissoluble? Did Vermont secede? Were the Green Mountain Boys and the Vermont political officials guilty of treason? Should Vermont tear down its monuments to treasonous traitors?
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.
[Walter E. Williams] Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
George Washington was inaugurated on March 4, 1789. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789. On May 18, 1790 the U.S. Congress passed a bill to impose an embargo on Rhode Island. After having rejected the Constitution eleven times, Rhode Island finally capitulated and, under said coercion, ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790.
See Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789, title page,
The Congressional Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America, namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina, and Georgia, Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government 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 constituents 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 willing 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 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.
It may cause some consternation that two states were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union. And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791.
woodpusher:
"It may cause some consternation that two states [North Carolina & Rhode Island]
were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union.
And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791."jeffersondem: "What you are doing with the presentation of facts is beyond brutal.
Sir, you are mean."
rustbucket: "LOL. Kudos to both of you."
OIFVeteran: "...the Union (The United States of America) that began it’s existence on 4 July 1776 has continued to exist uninterrupted since that day.
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."
Right, sorry I'm too late for this party, was required elsewhere...
The basic fact is that since Day One the US has added or subtracted territories & states, set & reset their boundaries, divided them up, consolidated some and, in the case of the Philippines, Cuba & others, set some free.
All of these were done constitutionally & lawfully, thus fulfilling James Madison's requirement that such "at pleasure" events be by mutual consent.
So here woodpusher & others wish to dangle before us the states of North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont, claiming, "see, see, see... those were not part of the Union so the 'indestructible' Union did not exist!"
Well, first of all, no foreign power ever officially recognized those states as separate & independent of the United States, nor did any other US states.
Second, none of those states declared themselves "free and independent" of the USA, and all ratified the new US Constitution as soon as they thought conditions warranted.
Bottom line is: the US Constitution allows for great flexibility in status or boundaries of territories & states, when changed by constitutionally approved methods. ![]()