As I have posted on this thread, NO state's representatives were "excluded" from the 1st Constitutional Congress. That Congress provided for Rhode Island and North Carolina by alloting them seats.
Hypothetically, if Rhode Island or North Carolina had continued to refuse to ratify the Constitution and "separated" from the "union," it certainly would have been with the consent of the other eleven.
Let me state, that although North Carolina had at first voted to reject the new Constitution, the sentiment changed when the 1st Congress proposed for State ratification the Bill of Rights. North Carolina in convention, ratified the Constitution on Nov 21, 1789 (one day after New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights). Then, operating under the full fellowship of the Union, North Carolina ratified the BoR on December 22, 1789, becoming the third state to do so.
Rhode Island, on the other hand, was a "basket case." Strong internal political divisions prevented Rhode Island from even holding a convention of the people. The "anti-federalist" majority in the State Assembly had attempted to provide a legislative vote on ratification, in contradiction to the terms of the new Constitution. The "pro-federalists" in the Assembly boycotted the session. (It was during this time that the Governor, in behalf of the anti-federalist legislature, sent the whiney letter {which has been posted here several times} to President Washington and the federal government.) Ultimately, it was the realization of the Rhode Islanders that they were quickly becoming a failed state, and that areas with "pro-federalist" majorities were negotiating annexation with neighboring members of the Constitutional Union, that led them to hold a ratification convention. Rhode Island ratified by the narrow majority of 34-32, and then, only because some of the "anti-federalists" abstained in the voting.
You are correct that one of the bonds that holds the Union is the "national" goverment (usage in today's terminology, rather than Madison's terminolgy, so we don't confuse you-know-who). But the roots of American nationalism (another type of bond) pre-date the Declaration of Independence.
|LINK|
"In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November [1788], by the successive disappearance of its members."
"It existed potentially until the 2d of March [1789], the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble."
It did? According to the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. 34, pp. 603-606, during the periond of 3 Nov 1788 to 2 Mar 1789, 19 different delegates, in attendance on 16 different days out of the full 102, of which no more than 2 men attended the same session on any one of those 16 days. The entry for 3 Nov 1788 is noted:
This is the first day of the federal year 1788--1789. From this date to March 2, 1789, delegates from the various states appeared and presented their credentials, so that it would have been possible at any time that seven states were present for the secretary to have read the credentials and for Congress to have begun its sessions. Because of the organization of the new Government under the Constitution, the Continental Congress for 1788--1789, never transacted any business.
That Congress provided for Rhode Island and North Carolina by alloting them seats.
I can "save" you a seat at my table, but that doesn't make you a member of my family.
Hypothetically, if Rhode Island or North Carolina had continued to refuse to ratify the Constitution and "separated" from the "union," it certainly would have been with the consent of the other eleven.
Because they didn't wage war on them? Where in the Constitution does it grant the states the power to "coerce" a state into ratification?
Let me state, that although North Carolina had at first voted to reject the new Constitution...
Not to nitpick, since I do think you presented an admirable post, but NC did not reject the Constitution. It deferred acceptance until a Declaration of Rights was presented,
Resolved, That a Declaration of Rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great Principles of civil and religious Liberty, and the unalienable Rights of the People, together with Amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptional Parts of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the Purpose of Amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the Ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the State of North Carolina.
Rhode Island ratified by the narrow majority of 34-32, and then, only because some of the "anti-federalists" abstained in the voting.
Correct. The state failed on 11 occasions to convene a convention. The people of the state - in town meetings - rejected the Constitution on 24 Mar 1788, by a vote of 2,708-237. The first called convention (1 Mar 1790)rejected the Constitution, the second narrowly ratified, but this was only after the other states in the "union" threatened her with economic sanctions - a tariff and a demand for debt payment - hence the "whiney" letter.
You are correct that one of the bonds that holds the Union is the "national" goverment ...
Which is why the state sent this to the new government, 'We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners, having no particular affinity or connection with the United States.'