The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[James Everett]

The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.

The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.

He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.

James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.

OK, JAKE,
Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people. Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
Which is it JAKE?

JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything. YOU are not the AUTHORITY. Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.

Interesting. Using CAPS does not affect the meaning.

JAKE,
Here is what Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution states, which was the law at the time of the debates and illegal ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution......
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Here is what James Madison wrote in his letter to Mr. Everett......

Mr. Everett.
August 1830…..

“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Again JAKE,
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

As You should be able to understand.....
It was an alteration that was CONFIRMED by the legislatures of EVERY STATE, it was NOT as Madison stated.....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed"
Now let us view what Mr. Farris stated.....
"Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."
Now, the State conventions of which Mr. Farris refers were Conventions held by elected delegates, THESE WERE NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURES AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XIII.
JAKE, this is not rocket science.

 

[James Everett]

Ratification of our federal Constitution ended the previous government through that vote of no confidence.

As stated, the ratification process violated the LAW.

 

[James Everett]

The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.

The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.

He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.

James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.

I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.

Here is the question...
If the union was a union of States, and a State is defined as ""
" A mode of government"
And a constitution establishing a republican form of government is the prerequisite for becoming a member State in the union, then clearly, there must be a union of States for there to be a United States.
Now if the State governments, and remember a State is ....
"a mode of government"
If they have no participation in the central body that the established to create the union, if they have no representation in that central body established between them, if they have no say in legislation: then how can that union of States be perpetual if the State governments are no longer party to the union that they established between themselves?
It would appear that that perpetual union between themselves no longer exists.

By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.
As for the definition of 'state', it is more an entity that is governed than a form/mode of governing. The word is a noun, not a verb, as used in this political context.
A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague. The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality.
So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution.

Lets begin here......
You stated.....
"So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution."

Only thirteen of the States were party to the Articles of Confederation, the other States that became part of the union under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution were not party to the Articles, hence any reference to perpetuity would be required in the 1787/1789 CONstitution to be binding on States that were never party to the first agreement.
You stated.....
By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.

Yes the union did exist, as it was a union of States, (and again a State is a mode of government) by definition. Hence the union under the Articles was a union of States...(modes of governments) united together in a Confederacy.
Article I of The Articles of Confederation states.....
"The Stile of this Confederacy, Shall be the United States of America."
The State governments participated via a congress made up of appointees by each States legislatures appointed to represent their States government in the union of Congress.
Hence the continual reference to...."IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED"......
Such as.....
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
IX.
The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article.
And on and on.......

Next you state....
"A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague."
Here we seek the explanation of former President James K Polk......
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty."
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States.
The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers."

Alexander Hamilton Stated in "The federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States."
So we see that a State may VOLUNTARILY place a portion of its sovereign powers on loan to a central body in the form of a treaty/Charter/Compact/Constitution, and still remain a sovereign, a State, yet without the ability to withdraw from a union, it cannot be said to retain sovereignty or its status as a sovereign State.
Last you state....
"The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality."
The people do not constitute a State.
People exist in a territory, but without a mode of government it remains just that, A territory.
The United States has had many territories, and the usual method by which that status changed was that once a territory reached a number of inhabitants, established a constitution forming a republican form of government and established borders, it could then petition to become a member State in the union.
It had first to establish itself as a State via a constitution forming a government.
U.S. Supreme Court
POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
"By the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress 'to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same may be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.' Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the government of the union. And these are the only cases, within the United States, in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already. The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted."

United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.
In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

 

[James Everett]

from the home page

THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA IS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF AMERICANS SEEKING REDRESS

Welcome to the official website of the Interim Government for the Confederate States of America.
The Confederates States of America was founded in 1861 and currently exist under the occupation of the national government of the United States of America. Our C.S.A. Constitution currently exists in a state of forced exile awaiting freedom loving Americans to rise and take up the banner of Truth and Justice and regain our States Sovereignty, and the founders system of governance. Progress is being made and the efforts to restore our beloved Confederacy continue to grow. With perseverance and dedication, the men and women of the Confederacy will have their Liberty. So help us God

Thanks for the promo JAKE!

 

[there4eyeM]

Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
Is that happening anywhere?

 

[James Everett]

The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.

The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.

He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.

James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.

OK, JAKE,
Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people. Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
Which is it JAKE?

JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything. YOU are not the AUTHORITY. Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.

Interesting. Using CAPS does not affect the meaning.

JAKE,
Here is what Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution states, which was the law at the time of the debates and illegal ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution......
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Here is what James Madison wrote in his letter to Mr. Everett......

Mr. Everett.
August 1830…..

“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Again JAKE,
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

As You should be able to understand.....
It was an alteration that was CONFIRMED by the legislatures of EVERY STATE, it was NOT as Madison stated.....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.

The ACC obviously agreed.

You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.

 

[James Everett]

The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification. The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one. Neither required comportment with Article XIII. Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all. This is not rocket sense at all.

James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.

He hurts no one at all. If he is happy, then quite good on him.

So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
AGAIN JAKE......
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.

You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.

The ACC obviously agreed.

You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.

 

[James Everett]

The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification. The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one. Neither required comportment with Article XIII. Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all. This is not rocket sense at all.

James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.

He hurts no one at all. If he is happy, then quite good on him.

So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
AGAIN JAKE......
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.

You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.

The ACC obviously agreed.

You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.

JAKE, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD.....
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, there is no 'so'. You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject. It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars. Good on you.

 

[James Everett]

Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
Is that happening anywhere?

You ask......
Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
Is that happening anywhere?
YES....
It is called individual secession, as in.....
http://csa.systekproof.com/wp-conte...essee-Republic-Plan-Under-the-Restoration.pdf
I do not participate in YOUR two party (Duopoly) political process.
I have nor never would serve in YOUR governments military supporting its hegemony.
I accept, nor request benifits from YOUR government.
Yes I do pay tribute, (Taxes) it is through......
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
On February 22 Grant declared martial law.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee.
Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature.
No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it. This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.

It is a little difficult for your position here to be taken seriously .....
"Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? "
As for today?
Have you ever heard of the Machiavellian illusion?
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
This illusion has been perpetuated on our people since birth, they can hardly be blamed. Breaking this illusion is a long journey, over 150 years of undoing, by exposing the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, the Constitution was accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification. The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one. Neither required comportment with Article XIII. Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

So your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all. This is not rocket science at all.

Your obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.

You hurt no one at all. If you are happy, then quite good on you.

 

[James Everett]

The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification. The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one. Neither required comportment with Article XIII. Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all. This is not rocket sense at all.

James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.

He hurts no one at all. If he is happy, then quite good on him.

So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
AGAIN JAKE......
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.

You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.

The ACC obviously agreed.

You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.

James, there is no 'so'. You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject. It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars. Good on you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we know all this: "James, there is no 'so'. You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject. It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars. Good on you."

 

[danielpalos]

Dudes and Esquires,

Ratification of our federal Constitution by the, several United States under the Articles of Confederation closed that position on the United States under the Articles of Confederation in favor of our federal Union; and why Conventions by State were necessary.

 

[James Everett]

Dudes and Esquires,

Ratification of our federal Constitution by the, several United States under the Articles of Confederation closed that position on the United States under the Articles of Confederation in favor of our federal Union; and why Conventions by State were necessary.

According to the law, which at that time was the 1781 Constitution, Article XIII required that any alteration to be.....
Agreed to (Confirmed) by the legislatures of every State, (ratifying a new CONstitution was a complete alteration)
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
A Convention of elected delegates does NOT meet the requirement of the LAW.
The LAW states that any alteration must be confirmed by the legislature of every State.....
NOT BY CONVENTION OF ELECTED DELEGATES.
Each State had a process for legislation to be passed by the legislators, that process required a vote by those State legislators, Alteration of one or all would require each State to follow its legislative process.
A Convention of elected delegates does NOT constitute confirmation by each States legislature.
If the Articles had been replaced legally, then the perpetuity would have been part of that replacement, otherwise one cannot state that only one part remained in effect while all others were nullified, when the perpetuity was not enumerated in the new CONstitution.
One cannot "have their cake and eat it to" in this circumstance. Either the Articles were replaced or they remain in effect. In legal terms the ratification was in violation of the law. One cannot state that secession was illegal when no law existed making secession illegal and then State that the perpetuity under the Articles made secession illegal and then state that the Articles were replaced by a new CONstitution. If the law concerning a perpetual union remained in effect, then how can one take that same article XIII and state that only part of that article remained in effect but the other part of that same article did not?
One can be inconsistent only if one wishes to avoid the truth in order to justify ones prefered position.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.

 

[James Everett]

Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.

Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
Yes, on that we. Agree .

 

[JakeStarkey]

No illegal act occurred except in James' thinking, so in fact no illegal act happened.

But James is hurting no one.

 

[James Everett]

No illegal act occurred except in James' thinking, so in fact no illegal act happened.

But James is hurting no one.

Well, JAKE
There is no denying, that Article XIII was the law.
There is no denying that that law was not followed to the letter.
You may choose to ignore these facts, but then I would expect no different from you.
It is interesting that I can point to the law that was violated in the illegal ratification of YOUR CONstitution, yet you cannot cite the law that was violated by the Southern States secessions, outside of the perpetual Statement in a Constitution that you state was replaced.
You keep repeating to yourself that I am harmless as if you are trying to convince yourself. Don't live in fear JAKE.