Possible consequences of state/s not ratifying Constitution?

It was after controversial enough where it's possible this happens. Would could the possible consequences of one of many of the states not ratifying the constitution? What if it just the bare minimum pass it? How bad could it plausible get?
 
It was after controversial enough where it's possible this happens. Would could the possible consequences of one of many of the states not ratifying the constitution? What if it just the bare minimum pass it? How bad could it plausible get?

Rhode Island held out OTL till 29th of May, 1790.

Bare minimum is 9 States. That was achieved on 21st of June, 1788.
At that date, neither Virginia nor New York had ratified.
Virginia would OTL ratify on 25th of June - by vote 89-79. New York OTL on 26th of July - by vote 30-27.
A fairly small butterfly might have caused both to reject - shifting 5-6 votes in Virginia, and 2 in New York. What was the legal rule if Virginia had tied 84-84? Any casting vote, or default to Nay?
With the result that Constitution would have technically applied, but without Virginia and New York have been plainly unviable.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Massachusetts was the critical state. The vote there was extremely close, with 187 for and 168 against. And it was one of the big states, without which the new federal union simply wouldn't have worked. So if Massachusetts had voted against it, then I find it extremely doubtful that the remaining states would have bothered with it. Virginia and New York, both of whom ratified only by very narrow votes, would probably have voted it down if Massachusetts had already done so. In the summer of 1788, North Carolina's convention actually declined to ratify the Constitution and only changed their mind after it had gone into operation and then wanted to get on the wagon.

If Rhode Island had held out against the Constitution and the British had offered them some sort of alliance, thing might have become very interesting.
 
If Rhode Island had held out against the Constitution and the British had offered them some sort of alliance, thing might have become very interesting.

Yes. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were nearby. If Rhode Island seceded from USA in 1789...1790 and joined British, would that have been nonviable?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Yes. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were nearby. If Rhode Island seceded from USA in 1789...1790 and joined British, would that have been nonviable?

The United States could have gone forward without Rhode Island. It's not like it was Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, or Virginia. But a Rhode Island allied with Britain would have been a running sore in the side of the new nation and would probably have led to another war sooner or later.
 
The United States could have gone forward without Rhode Island. It's not like it was Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, or Virginia. But a Rhode Island allied with Britain would have been a running sore in the side of the new nation and would probably have led to another war sooner or later.

Hmm there's a thought. An earlier 1812 starting with Rhode Island a primary battlefield would certainly through a spanner in the works wouldn't it?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Hmm there's a thought. An earlier 1812 starting with Rhode Island a primary battlefield would certainly through a spanner in the works wouldn't it?

I think that the American government would make it clear that the first moment a British soldier stepped ashore in Rhode Island that American troops would invade.
 
Top