Sure, but the fact remains that "secession" in 1788 was done by mutual consent, not unilaterally as in 1861.
In 1788, had fewer than 3/4 -- 9 states -- ratified, the new Constitution would be defunct and the old Articles of Confederation remain in effect.
That's mutual consent and it's not what happened in 1861.
Sorry, I fail to see your distinction. I believe you are straining at a gnat (look it up).
In both cases, states separately seceded from a government that they believed had failed them. In both cases, a new Constitution was developed by delegates from different states. In both cases, the new Constitution was subsequently ratified by states that had seceded from a former Union. In both cases, the new Constitution became effective after a certain number of states had ratified it.
In 1788, had fewer than 3/4 -- 9 states -- ratified, the new Constitution would be defunct and the old Articles of Confederation remain in effect.
That's mutual consent and it's not what happened in 1861
In 1861, had fewer than 5 of the then seceded states (71%), the new Constitution would be defunct, and the seceded states would have remained free, sovereign, and independent states like North Carolina and Rhode Island were until they ratified the US Constitution.
That's mutual consent, and it happened in 1861.
In my post 180, I missed putting in the word “ratified” after the 71%.