[WhiskeyPapa]

FYI, two days after this ludicrous decision, Massachusetts Senator Sedgwick introduced the legislation that became the 11th Amendment.

Yeah, the 11th amendment doesn't say a word about state sovereignty. The Justices made some pretty strong statements that seem to have gone unchallenged entirely. I would suggest this was because the failures of the Articles were still pretty fresh in people's minds and no one was ready to throw out the new security promised by the Constitution. The text you provide -- very interesting -- the Georgians were pretty exercised over all thing, to threaten to hang someone without even the benefit of clergy. But even their language doesn't deny what the Justices said.

Walt

[4CJ]

But even their language doesn't deny what the Justices said.

The 11th made the decision moot. Numerous states spoke about the issue of retained sovereignty. Their language spoke volumes.

[4CJ]

Yeah, the 11th amendment doesn't say a word about state sovereignty. The Justices made some pretty strong statements that seem to have gone unchallenged entirely.

The 11th refuted the justices arguments - they did not go unchallenged. Then nor now:

[W]e have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty."
Justice Scalia,Blatchford v. Native Village Of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991)

For an excellent discourse on the 11th and state sovereignty see Alden et al. v. Maine, 527 US 706, (1999).