Since you brought up this "did he ever disavow it", I ask you to apply the same standard to the Constitutional ratification statement of Virginia, of New York, and of Rhode Island, all which explicitly say they can resume their former powers.
Here is Virginia's as an example.
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:"
Did any of the founders disavow those statements? Did Congress refuse to accept their conditional ratifications?
The answer is "no, they did not." Therefore, following SoCal Pubbie's logic, the fact that they did not disavow those statements would appear to prove those statements were true and accurate.
Just trying to make you live up to your own set of standards.
Yes, I’m sure they’re true an accurate. To be clear, the sole truth I’ve been proving is the motivation for Southern secession. Which was the preservation of slavery. The constitutional right to secession, Lincoln’s goals, etc are side issues, to which you always deflect the debate. Just like in this post. avoiding the ludicrous idea that the Cornerstone speech can be disregarded because it was reported in the newspapers.