Replies

The new government went into effect, not on the basis of, or when, the ninth convention ratified the proposed Constitution, but rather by an orderly process including acts and resolutions of the Congress of the Confederation in 1788. Both Rhode Island and North Carolina were parties to that government when the date of March 4, 1789 was established. That the delegates from these two states often failed to show up or vote, does not negate they fact that they could have proposed a different date for the transition. The Journals of the Congresses of the Confederation do not seem to record any great urgency or concern by the delegates from these states.

You correctly point out they were not, during the time after March 4, 1789, until the States each ratified the Constitution, subject to the authority of the new government. What would you say their status was during that "interregnum"?

The Constitution went into effect before 1789 (among eleven states only), and while the Congress of the Confederation assisted in an orderly transition of power, it had no power to stop the formation of the new government. Moreover, the eleven states who were members of the new government were members of the old government. They were, quite simply, seeing to an orderly transition to themselves under a new form of government (which 2 states had declined to join).

Elections were held pursuant to the new Constitution in 1788. It would seem doubtful that the 11 states could have held lawful elections pursuant to a Constitution that had not taken effect. I am making a distinction here. The Constitution was in effect, and the eleven states set about forming a government pursuant thereto. The government under the AofC dissolved one day, and the government under the Constitution went into effect the next.

I believe the government under the AofC dissolved on March 2, 1789 and the new congress, elected under the new Constitution was seated on March 3, 1789.

I see no relevance to your assertion that RI and NC could have proposed a different date for transition, nor that you do not perceive any great urgency on their part. Had they participated, one would be saying that they approved of the transition and helped it along. However, they disapproved of the transition.

When the government under the AofC dissolved, the states of RI and NC reverted to their status prior to the AofC -- free, independent, sovereign states. They held the right of self-determination. Realistically speaking, they lacked the economic power to survive as independent nations, but they had the right to that determination should they have chosen that path.

Had Rhode Island declared itself to be the free, sovereign, and independent nation of Rhode Island, the other states would have had no legal right to invade with military force to save Rhode Island from its lack of wisdom.

The interpretation of the law should be consistent. Whether the law holds that one or more non-ratifying states were still members of the Union cannot depend on which states were non-ratifying. In holding that a non-ratifying state was held captive within the union, it may become problematic if the states are not NC and RI, but hypothetically NY, PA, OH, VA.

Now, could the nine little munchkins set aside four chairs and tell the recalcitrant four what to do? The recalcitrant four could say not just no, but hell no. New England would be cut off and non-viable.

But whether the law holds a non-ratifying state is, or is not, a continuing member of the union cannot be decided by the economic or political power of the state(s) in question. If nine states ratified, and four states declined, in determining the status of the non-ratifying four, the law must reach the same result regardless of which four states declined.