Talk:Revolutionary breach of legal continuity

[Untitled]
Hi all! Couldn't we change the name of the page to Breach of constitutional continuity? It would be more general like that, and it certainly is an important issue. 193.224.72.252 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This passage, now in the article, seems misleading: "A few years later the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the United States Constitution was a technical breach of continuity, which did not result in a civil war only because of the very reason of the breach: the first USA defined by the Articles had a weak central government that therefore had no means to defend itself." But they did not simply lack the ability, but also the desire. In early July 1788 the Congress of the Confederation began to discuss whether to admit the proposed state of Kentucky into the United States. They were interrupted by a notification that New Hampshire had just become the ninth state to ratify the proposed new Constitution. They decided that the circumstances made it prudent to leave the decision to the new Congress that would sit under the new Constitution. In other words, they acquiesced. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)