Rhode Island Threatened With Invasion?

Miscellaneous History
1

According to Butler Shaffer, “Even as the Constitution was undergoing ratification — but after the requisite nine states had approved the document so as to bring it into fruition — the resulting United States government threatened the recalcitrant state of Rhode Island with invasion and a blockade of its port should it fail to ratify. Rhode Island can truly be said to be the first victim of American imperialism!”

I need to find support that this occurred, but I can’t find anything. Anyone know where I can?

2

It’s true, but I don’t remember where I read it. Whenever I go on forums elsewhere, and I say that the Constitution could never have been ratified legally and the statists always like to forget that Rhode Island never would’ve joined Federal Republic had they not been forced to.

I think it was a law that Congress passed in the early 1790s and Washington signed into law. It was some kind of forceful trade sanction.

3

I emailed Shaffer and he replied: “This is fairly well established, although I became acquainted with it so many years ago that I can’t recall the source. You might look at some of Murray Rothbard’s writings. I will also try to retrace my steps from 50 or so years ago.”

4
5

Thanks Malachi. I found what I was looking for at the link:

"Rhode Island’s place in the new Union, created by the Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia in 1787, was decided only after a long and closely contested political battle. Rhode Islanders were very jealoous of any outside interference with their affairs, particularly with their trade, and hence the State did not send delagates to the Philidelphia Convention.

After the new Federal Constitution had been adopted by its framers, Rhode Island delayed until 1790 before calling a State convention to ratify the new instrument of government. In July, 1789, Congress sought to force Rhode Island into the Union by placing the State (and also North Carolina, which had not ratified) outside the revenue limits of the rest of the country, but it postponed enforcement of this dicriminatory act to 1790.

A Rhode Island convention finally met in the Old Court House at South Kingstown on March 1, but this assambly adjourned without coming to a favorable decision. A second convention met at Newport two months later, and ratified the Federal Constitution on May 29, by the vote of 34 ayes to 32 nays."

  • Rhode Island: A Guide to the Smallest State By Federal Writers’ Project (p.46)

=============

I also found this which adds to it and supports it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xZFrVbQ9NIgC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=rhode+island+ratification+%2Bembargo&source=bl&ots=Jx1bcYjFuX&sig=ue6XMhh3goB3FTiExMCPkqsLGNM&hl=en&ei=QTqjTuasGKSFiAK7-rxn&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=rhode%20island%20ratification%20%2Bembargo&f=false

"Rhode Island, the only state refusing to send delagates to Philidelphia, at first did not comply with Article VII’s requirement that ratification be accomplished by convention. The anti-federalists disliked the amplitude of Congressional power, the absence of a bill of rights, and the ban on state issuance of paper money. The antis, who dominated the legislature, tried to avoid a ratifying convention on the likely assumption that it would have voted for the Constitution.

Although a referendum was attacked by federalists as inconsistent with the specified ratification mode, the Rhode Island legislature ordered the Constitution submitted directly to the towns for a vote, where in March 1788 it was rejected. In October the legislature submitted the Clinton letter’s proposal for another federal convention, but the response from the towns was too late and too scattered to be effective. On May 29, 1790, as Congress threatened a trade embargo, Rhode Island by state convention ratified the Constitution."

  • Constitutional Brinksmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention By Russell L. Caplan (p. 38)

==============

Furthermore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rhode_Island

"Rhode Island was the last of the original 13 states to ratify the United States Constitution (May 29, 1790)—doing so after being threatened of having its exports taxed as a foreign nation. Rural resistance to the Constitution was strong in Rhode Island, and the anti-federalist Country Party controlled the General Assembly from 1786 to 1790.

In 1788 anti-federalist politician and revolutionary general, William West, led an armed force of 1,000 men to Providence to oppose a 4 July celebration of the 9th state ratifying the Constitution. Civil war was narrowly averted by a compromise limiting the Fourth of July celebration."

Haha! Three cheers for William West!

6

From a Constitutional perspective this doesn’t seem illegal at all. You can impose as many embargoes as you want under the Constitution. There is no limitation saying that you can’t “convince” other nations to join you with embargoes.

7

As James Ostrowski writes:

“The union established by the Articles of Confederation, in spite of its exhortation of perpetuity, was terminated by nothing other than a secession! The proposed Constitution provided that it would take effect upon ratification by nine states. On 21 June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify. On that date, a new union was formed, exclusive of Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, which had not yet ratified. That new union seceded from the union formed by the Articles of Confederation in violation of Article XIII, which barred any alteration in the Articles save by unanimous consent.”

So, for those who believe in the social contract, the ratification of the Constitution was illegal because it (1) violated Article XIII and (2) the new illegal union of 9 states threatened Rhode Island to sign the new contract, and legally and morally speaking any contract that is signed because of a threat makes the contract null and void.

8

threatened Rhode Island to sign the new contract

It’s an economic threat, not a violent one. Hence, it is legal.

However, it does appear that the US as we know it was a secession from the AoC. This is a blow to the anti-secessionists. Well, also a blow to the Constitutionalists :stuck_out_tongue:

9

Ah that makes sense. Dang it I almost had it! Now I have to see if I can find if RI was threatened “with invasion and a blockade of its port” as Shaffer says. Surely that is a violent threat.

And can someone tell me what it means to put RI “outside the revenue limits of the rest of the country?”

The three threats that are mentioned are that as well as a “trade embargo” and “having its exports taxed as a foreign nation.” Are these the same thing or three seperate deeds going on?

10

I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic or not. I agree that a blockade would be violent, and hence illegal (if they actively block RI from carrying on with seafaring). I do support you in your attempt to find threats of invasion. I just didn’t find support for that in the other pieces of evidence you posted.

The three threats that are mentioned are that as well as a “trade embargo” and “having its exports taxed as a foreign nation.” Are these the same thing or three seperate deeds going on?

I wondered about that as well.

11

No sarcasm. I’m going to keep searching.