[jeffersondem]

“As long as the amendments were processed and duly ratified per constitutional requirements . . .”

That is the problem with amendments 13, 14, and 15.

The consent of the southern states to these amendments was obtained though the coercion of federal bayonets.

Consent obtained through coercion is not consent.

[Jim W N]

The consent of the southern states to these amendments was obtained though the coercion of federal bayonets.

That is debatable.

The southern states had seceded from the Union and the Union won the war to force them back as part of the USA. As severed states, their required voluntary ratification is questionable.

IMO, these Post-Civil-War Amendments were part of the Union victory over the South and the South's consent at that point wasn't necessary because the South itself were kind of pseudo-states in the process of re-uniting with the Union.

[stremba]

You can’t have it both ways. The southern states maintained that they had seceded from the union. They cannot then turn around and make the argument that their ratification was needed to ratify these amendments. By these states’ own assertion, only 3/4 of the non-seceding states had to ratify them for them to take effect.

[MosesKnows]

Comment: It requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislators to ratify an amendment. That is a large group to hold at the point of a literal or figurative bayonet.