I'm not twisting anything. According to well established legal principles, the Court's decision in that case would make the entire union a fraudulent agreement, and therefore void. BTW, I do not think it was a fraudulent agreement. The framers accepted the conditions just as they were stated in the ratifications. The Justice's "consensus of States" requirement is a direct violation of those stated conditions.
You can't look at the Constitution as a mere legal contract. A clause like those put into the ratification documents by states like Virginia and New York would be binding only if both sides agreed to it. But ratification wasn't a negotiation between two sides, it was the acceptance of the Constitution by the individual states. The framers weren't accepting anything, it was the states that were. Therefore, the clauses would be binding only if both sides agreed to it. Instead the clauses in the ratification document were a one-sided assumption of what was permitted under the Constitution. The Constitution was the final word on what was legal and illegal and the Supreme Court ruled that the path that Virginia chose to follow in 1861 was illegal.