I know about that. The ratification documents state what the Constitution meant to the people who actually ratified them. You ignore them; I don't.
The statements of other states do not say what you claim either.
The New York ratification document said exactly what I said it did. Here's the link again to that document : Link to New York's ratification of the Constitution. If the words are not correct, I suggest you take it up with Yale Law School. They run the web site.
In their ratification document, the New York ratifiers said what the Constitution meant about their right to resume their own governance and a number of other things. If Hamilton thought the Constitution meant that states couldn't reassume their own governance, he either got outvoted at the convention or went along with the majority, Madison's letter notwithstanding.
Cite for me, if you would, any rejections of New York's ratification document by other states. I'm not aware of any. We would have had an ineffective, discontinuous country without New York and Virginia.
Now let's look the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. From Yale Law School again: Link to Rhode Island ratification document:
We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known ...
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness [my bold] ...Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution.
If the Rhode Island document I linked to is not the correct one, I'm sure you will let me know and supply the correct one.
Now Virginia. From Yale Law School again: Link to Virginia ratification document
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 [my bold] ...
The Tenth Amendment basically says the same thing. As "one of the greatest legal minds ever created" (to use your own description of him) said, "does not a power remain till it is given away?"
Other states proposed various versions of the Tenth Amendment in their ratification documents:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
That makes a total of seven states in their ratification documents, a majority of the original 13. The Tenth Amendment became part of the Constitution, being ratified by even more of the original 13. It took 10 states of the 13 to ratify the Amendment.
The only minds the 10th amendment provides a legal basis for secession for are weak ones.
LOL. I will match wits with you anytime.
States NEVER had “their own governance” to resume. They went from being colonies to being part of the USA. Most did not even have constitutions until Independence was declared.
Actually the Declaration of Independence called them states (actually "the thirteen united States of America," lower case letter "u"), the 1777 version of the Articles of Confederation called them states, some states minted their own coins, states regulated their own commerce, raised and funded their own armies, Virginia declared its independence before the Continental Congress did, King George called them states, France made a treaty with the 13 United States of America, etc.
A constitution is the basis of the Union and like the foundation of a house cannot have part of it removed without endangering the whole structure. It weaves the states into a nation AND WAS INTENDED TO. It is a fundamental law.
And nowhere did this "fundamental law" prohibit states from withdrawing from it. If secession was not permitted by the Constitution, why didn't it say so? Seems pretty important. Why isn't it there? You know as well as I that it wouldn't have been ratified if it contained such a restriction.
As Madison himself said:
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. [my bold]
These documents are justifying the modification of the Articles and the creation of the new government as much as any rejection of that new government. Your view is like including a statement of divorce proceedings within a marriage vow.
States could not unilaterally withdraw even under the “compact” theory of the constitution. Every contract is legally enforcible including the supposed contract between the states forming the Union. It can be legally changed by one method only - amendment by the People. New York’s ratification document does not claim otherwise or even demand its wishes received anything beyond “early and mature consideration”.
Given the nature of the document as the creator of UNION disunion was not a subject of interest and there was no need for such a specification as to an ability to withdraw.
Such a “right” would mean ultimate chaos. Resumption of powers by the People is not the same as a state decision to do something. Such resumption would come as an amendment or convention called for the nation as a whole. Anything else is insurrection or rebellion which is constitutionally allowed to put down. As it was.