No, what he said was,
[To Alexander Hamilton] [July 20, 1788]N. York Sunday Evening
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.
[s/ James Madison]
You've misconstrued his statement as a statement that ratification of the Constitution must be a threshold or express ratification, whereas the language he uses fits as well for a tacit or perpetual ratification. What he specifically rejects is the idea of ratifying with a set expiration or sunset date in the ratification.
His objection to the attempts at reservations by New York and Virginia rests on the idea of conditional ratification, which he condemns as destructive of the reciprocity of compacts (notice that he does use the word "compact" here).
Didn't think I'd look it up, did you? You should have posted it yourself, and this is why. You misread his salient point.
Islamic marriage can be with five people. The analogy is proper.
One wife dies or runs away. The marriage continues.
Your statement that secessionists tried to "destroy" the Union is still false, misleading, and propagandistic. The South didn't do anything in justice or equity to the Northern States by leaving the Union.
The letter specifically says "The Constitution requires an adoption en toto, and FOR EVER." Exactly what I said.
As for your great discovery of the reciprocal nature of the compact it also undermines your case by since it means changes wrt to the compact must be made on a reciprocal basis not a unilateral declaration by a participant in it. Thus, constitutional secession would be possible only through the defined amendment process.
I am glad you looked it up too bad you didn't understand what it says. Of course, who knows what "for ever" means to you. Before you lapse into paranoid conclusions perhaps you should examine my posts and find ONE which includes a posting of a document. You won't be able to.
Nor is your construction of Islamic marriage correct the women are not married to each other there are four separate marriages not just one.
Our Union is an organic thing and removing a state unconstitutionally is as destructive of that Union as removing the head from a body.