[Editor’s Note: Commenter Matt Dreyer sends along the following as food for thought. I don’t know how many times I need to tell the rest of you people to step up and start pulling your weight. This is a group endeavor.]
On June 21st, 1789 New Hampshire ratified the United State Constitution. It was the ninth state to do so. Article VII of the Constitution states, in full, “The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” June 21st is therefore, whatever a bunch of crazed July 4th partisans might want to tell you, the birthday of the United States as opposed to the date, give or take, on which a motley collection of colonies declared independence from Great Britain.
The Edge of the American West 
30 comments
June 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm
ben wolfson
I suppose this also means that there were originally only nine states, and not thirteen as popularly imagined.
June 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm
ari
You should write about collective memory, Ben. You have a keen grasp of the discipline’s subtleties.
June 21, 2008 at 4:25 pm
andrew
No, the remaining states were constitutionalized at the moment the 9th state signed. Even Rhode Island, who didn’t show up for the convention. I assume they greeted their incorporation to the United States with flowers; doesn’t everyone?
June 21, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Ben Alpers
Think of all the trouble the EU could have saved itself if they’d set up their ratification system this way.
June 21, 2008 at 5:06 pm
ben wolfson
No, the remaining states were constitutionalized at the moment the 9th state signed.
Is this true? Because it makes absolutely no sense.
June 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm
andrew
It’s like the process for amendment ratification: 3/4 approval and it goes through. Of course it doesn’t make sense the first time.
June 21, 2008 at 5:17 pm
andrew
Although now that I think about it, I wonder what would have happened had the later conventions turned it down. In a sense, it only constitutionalized the other states because they agreed to see it that way. Afterwards.
June 21, 2008 at 6:38 pm
ben wolfson
No, it’s much different from amendment ratification.
All of the states have already agreed that, to ratify an amendment, you need only 3/4 of the states to agree. They’ve agreed to that since it’s one of the provisions of the constitution, which they’ve ratified.
The provision that says that only nine out of the thirteen colonies needs to ratify the constitution is also part of the constitution, of course, but the constitution itself is what was being ratified. The four colonies that hadn’t yet ratified the constitution had also not yet ratified the clause of the constitution stating how many states need to ratify the constitution for its universal adoption. They, therefore, cannot be bound by it. And I suppose that they weren’t: w/d’s quotation is “The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”; that each ratifier has agreed that as soon as nine ratifications have taken place, the constitution will be established among those who have already ratified. Not among all colonies.
Very sensible! Otherwise you’d have a bootstrapping problem exactly akin to one in which I amend the constitutional amendment process by proposing and ratifying an amendment stating that any amendment that at least one citizen puts forth and ratifies is therefore adopted.
June 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
ben wolfson
Unless, of course, the 9/13ths clause were agreed to by the colonies separately from its being part of the constitution, but then it would have been that agreement, not the constitutional clause, doing the work.
June 21, 2008 at 7:18 pm
washerdreyer
This is a confusing thread. AFAIK, no one thinks the Constitution was effective in RI (or an any other state, but RI is the obvious example) prior to ratification. On the other hand, there was of course non-legal pressure to ratify from those states which did.
June 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
CharleyCarp
the remaining states were constitutionalized
WD has this right.
And Vermont stayed an independent republic a couple years more.
June 21, 2008 at 7:57 pm
matt w
I don’t know how many times I need to tell the rest of you people to step up and start pulling your weight.
I sent you a link about forgotten American Abel Kavanaugh, but the e-mail address I have for you doesn’t work.
June 21, 2008 at 8:30 pm
andrew
Ok, so I was wrong. I thought there was something fictive about it.
June 21, 2008 at 8:33 pm
andrew
Otherwise you’d have a bootstrapping problem exactly akin to one in which I amend the constitutional amendment process by proposing and ratifying an amendment stating that any amendment that at least one citizen puts forth and ratifies is therefore adopted.
No, you wouldn’t, in my (wrong) understanding. The only time it doesn’t make sense is the first time, when everyone agrees to look the other way, after which they stick to the provisions. The Constitution wasn’t legal under the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimity; in that case, they really did sort of look away.
June 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm
andrew
Also, Vermont wasn’t one of the 13 in the 9 of 13, were they?
June 21, 2008 at 8:38 pm
andrew
I’m just going to keep serial commenting. Looking at the clause, the 13 aren’t named, so theoretically I guess Vermont could have swooped in and ratified before other states. But I don’t think the Constitution was reported to Vermont for ratification at the same time or as part of the same process as it was reported to the first 13 states.
June 21, 2008 at 8:40 pm
ari
My e-mail, the one I check anyway, is akelman AT yooseedavis DOT edu.
June 21, 2008 at 8:52 pm
teofilo
Vermont was not one of the 13 colonies/states. Both New York and (I think) New Hampshire claimed it at the time, although the actual inhabitants were not impressed with either of their claims. Hence the “independent republic” period, during the time when it was unclear if the United States was even going to admit new states beyond the original 13.
June 21, 2008 at 11:23 pm
andrew
At the risk of boring everyone, I’m still trying to think this through. As I understand it
1. Ratification is just for the 13 original states (under the Articles of Confederation)
2. All later states join by a process of admission, not ratification
3. Only 9 states need to ratify to put the Constitution in effect
Ok, assuming that’s correct, now let’s jump to the point where 9 states have ratified the Constitution.
States 10-13 are still going to hold ratifying conventions, but what does ratification mean now? The establishment of the Constitution does not depend on their decisions – but the scope of its effectiveness does. North Carolina actually rejects the Constitution the first time around, but because that happens after 9 states already ratified it, all that means is that the Constitution is still not effective in North Carolina, not that there is no established Constitution. So to the extent that “ratification” refers to the process of making the Constitution an effective document, the “ratifying conventions” of states 10-13 did not have the same effect on the Constitution that the conventions held in states 1-9 did. In that sense it was the first 9 states that made the Constitution constitutional; the next four states just agreed to be under its jurisdiction.
None of this changes the fact that Ben was correct that at the beginning there were only 9 states under the Constitution.
June 21, 2008 at 11:42 pm
ari
I’m not bored. But I am getting more and more confused.
June 21, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Vance Maverick
Did we miss Juneteenth?
June 21, 2008 at 11:53 pm
ari
We did. And you should blame SEK, if you please. I asked him to do a post on Ellison and Juneteenth. But SEK was “too busy.” Sure, sure, whatever (racist).
June 22, 2008 at 12:15 am
andrew
But I am getting more and more confused.
As am I. But I should have written something more like my most recent comment instead of
No, the remaining states were constitutionalized at the moment the 9th state signed.
What I meant is that when states 10-13 ratified, they agreed to be part of a Constitution that states 1-9 had brought into existence, and that because the Constitution was clearly intended to cover 13 states, it still makes sense to talk of 13 original states – but only because 10-13 eventually ratified. Now that is confusing, so it’s probably good that it’s wrong.
And the flowers part of that comment was a joke; I know that some of the later conventions were the most contentious. What makes that fact so interesting to me is that there was a Constitution by that time. In a way the “at least 9” requirement turned out to be an effective tool for getting the unanimity the Framers worried they couldn’t get.
June 22, 2008 at 1:23 am
urbino
All this makes me wonder what role the Constitution played in territories’ (and independent republics’) decisions to seek statehood. Since most of them became states before SCOTUS really took up occupying itself with the Bill of Rights, and before it was applied to the states, I would expect that the rights therein were not a big draw. (OTOH, I’ve been known to be wrong.)
What about other aspects of the American constitutional system, though? Did they feature — and to what degree — in debates over whether to seek statehood?
June 22, 2008 at 3:12 am
foolishmortal
Constitution, schmonstitution, it’s not like we were using it or anything. The real tragedy is that it was the solstice last night and my roommates wouldn’t let me burn anything. Not only are my pagan ancestors pissed, but I wouldn’t bet against an increase in spam and/or a bad harvest.
June 22, 2008 at 3:42 am
andrew
seek statehood
All I know is that if Iraq’s government wants to keep federal troops off its soil, they should look into this option.
June 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
d
I’ve never seen such pointless, ahistorical wanking in my wife. Everyone knows the Constitution was effective the moment that Baby Jesus finished writing it.
June 22, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Ben Alpers
I’ve never seen such pointless, ahistorical wanking in my wife.
I take it that’s a good thing, d?
June 22, 2008 at 6:07 pm
urbino
Maybe if he brought her some nice flowers every once in a while…
June 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm
washerdreyer
While in the post I attribute the view that July 4 is the birthday of the United States to unnamed crazed partisans, I’ve now discovered that one of those crazed partisans is the government of the United States: Independence Day honors the birthday of the United States of America and the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.