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.
I know the reference, it was mentioned again last Sunday.
You have swallowed the camel, FRiend.
rustbucket: "In both cases, states separately seceded from a government that they believed had failed them. "
First, you understand, of course, that we greatly strain the definition of "seceded" when applied to 1788?
That's why it should be put in quotes whenever used for 1788 -- "seceded".
Second, even if we consider, for sake of argument, that 1788 represented "secession" from the old Articles along with ratification of the new Constitution, there is still a huge difference from 1861, since both secession and ratification were done in one vote, mutually consented by all parties.
rustbucket: "In both cases, a new Constitution was developed by delegates from different states."
But in 1787 those were delegates from every state, thus allowing for mutual consent.
By contrast in 1861 only six of 34 states sent delegates, thus guaranteeing no mutual consent.
rustbucket: "In both cases, the new Constitution was subsequently ratified by states that had seceded from a former Union."
Wrong, and an important distinction.
In 1788 votes to ratify the new Constitution were simultaneously votes to "secede" from and abolish the old Articles of Confederation.
These were acknowledged by the old Continental Congress in 1788 after which it dissolved itself in 1789.
That is the very definition of "mutual consent" and it's far from what happened in 1861.
rustbucket: "In both cases, the new Constitution became effective after a certain number of states had ratified it."
But in 1788 it was 3/4 of every state, meaning mutual consent, while in 1861 it was a much smaller number, meaning no mutual consent.
rustbucket: "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."
Unlike 1788 there was no mutual consent in 1861 from the entire Union, and that's the difference.
Our Founders practiced and supported disunion (independence, "secession", etc.) from necessity as in 1776 or by mutual consent as in 1788.
No genuine Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure which is what happened in 1861.