Consequences of Article VI, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the 11th Article of Confederation
<p>Article VI, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, known as the Engagements Clause, says: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The eleventh Article of Confederation says Canada will be admitted into the United States as a new state whenever it so chooses, without any need for an act of Congress to admit them.</p>

<p>Would this mean that if Canada were to decide tomorrow to become a new state in the U.S., it would be immediately admitted without an act of Congress?</p>

<p>No, for two reasons: </p>

<p>1) The engagements referred to include all <em>non-debt</em> financial or economic obligations, such as contracts. This usage was common at the time. For example, Art. II of the <em><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Northwest Ordinance</a></em> says, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>no law ought ever...interfere with or affect private contracts or <em>engagements</em>, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>2) Even if they cover more than financial obligations, engagements imply mutuality, which was lacking in the offer to Canada. (That offer was made in desperation at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, when the US was desperate for allies. The US was so enamored of Canada that they tried to get it in the Treaty of Paris which ended the War.) </p>

canada us-constitution