The ratification of the proposed Constitution was an act of the People, rather than the governments of the several states. An alteration of the Articles required the unanimous approval of the legislatures of the states.
The Constitution of 1787 was authorized by a sovereign people; hence, it is supreme to the Articles of Confederation. It was the will of the people to preserve the Union, rather than let it die in chaos. To invoke, as you do, a "requirement" for unanimous consent to the Constitution (else some parties either were expelled, seceded, or withdrew from the Union), based on an Articles process, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and process.
Your characterization of the transition from government under a framework provided in the Articles, to government under a framework provided in the Constitution, as "formal withdrawal of the ratifying States from the union formed under the Articles" lacks substantiation. Have you provided any documentation to show either "formality" or "withdrawal?" The "union" existed prior to the ratification of Articles in 1777-1781 and after the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-1790.
I know that several authors have termed the development of the Constitution "revolutionary." Prof. Berkin in her recent book has even likened the process to a "bloodless coup." I view the progression of the formation and development of a "national" goverment as a work in progress. Many of those involved in the Declaration were also part of the debate on the Articles. Many of those who served in government under the Articles were involved in the development of the Constitution. And those who debated the necessity of the new Constitution also debated the rationale for a "Bill of Rights." Therein exists a continuity of purpose. That purpose was to "perfect" the union and to guarantee all Americans their fundamental, God-given rights and liberties. Whether or not Rhode Island political situation permitted participated in Constitutional Convention is a matter of little importance. That North Carolina adjourned its first ratification convention without a vote, but with suggestions for amendments, is only fodder for trivia.
It is transparent that the goal of those who believe southern secession in the 1860's was a valid exercise of power, will seek to show other historical actions in a secessionist light. However, the weakness of the secessionist argument is plain to see, and the paucity of documentation is even more revealing.
I’m sorry to see you once again mired in pseudo-historical mysticism – particularly with regard to something so simple, and so fundamental. The Constitution was not “authorized by a sovereign people:” no such single “sovereign people” existed. It was “authorized” by the “sovereign people” of each of the individual, ratifying States. As Mr. Madison noted at the time:
“That [ratification] will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
James Madison, Federalist No. 39
Or, as Mr. Chief Justice Marshall put it:
”No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.”
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
(“No political dreamer” – except our own capitan_refugio, that is! ;>) And as Mr. Justice Thomas noted more recently (in your favorite dissenting opinion ;>):
”[I]t would make no sense to speak of… the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.”
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995
Recognize reality – “[t]he Constitution of 1787” was NOT “authorized by a sovereign people,” and in fact “does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation,” including the establishment of the Constitution. If you are going to appeal to the ‘the people,’ you will have to do so on a State-by-State basis (which, of course, will undermine your argument, rather than support it! ;>)…
To invoke, as you do, a "requirement" for unanimous consent to the Constitution (else some parties either were expelled, seceded, or withdrew from the Union), based on an Articles process, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and process.
And you, my friend, apparently have “a fundamental misunderstanding of both history” and law. Unanimous consent was a ‘legal’ requirement, binding upon the members of the “political” union formed under the Articles – unless those members individually retained a superior ‘legal’ right. To avoid applying the requirements of Articles II & XIII to the formation of the constitutional union, you claim that the Articles were ‘superseded,’ not ‘altered,’ that laws applicable to even a single, simple change in the political ‘contract’ governing the union were not applicable when that contract was changed in its entirety. Alternatively, you claim the union was not “political,” but rather a “state of mind” (although I have no idea why “the consent of the States” would be required to change a “state of mind,” nor can I conceive how a “state of mind” could be legally binding). Finally, you apparently resort to the ‘right of revolution,’ claiming the constitutional union was “authorized by a sovereign people,” even though no such single “sovereign people” even existed.
Frankly, I suspect your mental gymnastics result from your wild attempts to avoid any conclusion which might suggest that the individual States - and their people - possessed sovereign rights. To recognize that the ratifying States individually possessed a right to withdraw from a supposedly “perpetual” union, might require that you recognize the right of secession. To avoid that conclusion, you suggest that the right to ‘supersede’ the Articles was an unwritten and undefined ‘group right’ of “consenting States,” or a ‘group right’ of a non-existent single “sovereign people.”
The truth was apparently not so complicated:
”It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed…”
James Madison, Federalist No. 43
Of course, if “the compact [is] void,” so also is any requirement for “perpetual” union. And if “the federal pact” was ‘dissolved,’ so was the “political” union it governed. In other words, Mr. Justice Chase’s opinion in Texas v. White was revisionist hogwash. No wonder you prefer your “state of mind” argument…
Your characterization of the transition from government under a framework provided in the Articles, to government under a framework provided in the Constitution, as "formal withdrawal of the ratifying States from the union formed under the Articles" lacks substantiation. Have you provided any documentation to show either "formality" or "withdrawal?" The "union" existed prior to the ratification of Articles in 1777-1781 and after the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-1790.
Do you not consider a convention of States, and a proposal to adopt a new governing compact (by means of a process that violates the terms of the existing compact ;>), to be “formal?” What of the ratification documents of the individual States (particularly those reserving the right of secession ;>) – were they ‘informal?’
As for “withdrawal,” I refer you to Mr. Madison’s comments above. If an individual State, as a party to a compact creating a “political” union, considers itself ‘absolved’ of its responsibilities thereunder, and the compact “void” as to itself and its relationship to the other parties - it has, in simple terms, seceded. The concurrence of eight additional seceding States in the prearranged formation of a new union, with a new government, is merely ‘icing on the cake.’
You seem to employ circular logic to suggest that no secession occurred: claiming that a single “union existed” both before and “after the ratification of the Constitution,” you suggest that no “withdrawal” occurred, because a single “union existed” both before and “after the ratification of the Constitution.” In fact, your claim flies in the face of documented historical fact, including the terms of the compacts, the Federalist Papers, and the records of the constitutional conventions (many excerpts from which I have quoted here ;>).
Whether or not Rhode Island political situation permitted participated in Constitutional Convention is a matter of little importance. That North Carolina adjourned its first ratification convention without a vote, but with suggestions for amendments, is only fodder for trivia.
Once you have discarded the idea of a “political” union, I’m sure all political and legal matters are “of little importance,” and “only fodder for trivia”…
;>)
It is transparent that the goal of those who believe southern secession in the 1860's was a valid exercise of power, will seek to show other historical actions in a secessionist light. However, the weakness of the secessionist argument is plain to see, and the paucity of documentation is even more revealing.
Actually, the “secessionist argument” is hardly as ‘weak’ as you might wish. Quite the contrary, in fact:
”The Constitution’s silence on [the matter of State secession] contributed to the intensity of the debate over secession, for it allowed Southerners to plausibly maintain that secession was a legal right of each state under the Constitution... Indeed, the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.”
That, my friend, is the recently-expressed opinion of Dr. William E. Gienapp, Professor of History at the ‘hotbed of secessionism’ more commonly known as Harvard University (and author of The Political System and the Coming of the Civil War - and also The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1865 ;>). Pardon me if I agree with the good professor: “the proponents of secession had... a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.”
As for any “paucity of documentation” – I don’t recall that you ever documented your claim that “[t]he Union… is a state of mind.” Did I miss something? And what about your claim that Article XIII somehow applied to ‘alterations,’ but not to ‘supersessions?’ It has been your posts that have been long on opinion, and short on “documentation”…
(Of course, there is your Post #1,892 – what was it you were saying about lengthy posts? ;>)