Subsequent to consideration of the Amendment, the legislature passed Act 280 which included a mandate that the State publish the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments. The legislators knew very well that with their ratification the Amendment had been ratified. That’s why it was in the publication.
Interesting discussion of the non-ratification of TONA
That "interesting discussion" is so shrill as to be effectively a slur (but then, sloppy supporting evidence hasn't restrained you before. Some of the arguments are well known (such as the dates of admission), while a good many are laughable.
For an example of the latter, the author to which you sent me cites the following language in the Constitution as indication that TONA was unnecessary:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.
Which is an entirely specious argument, as the title at question, "esquire," is awarded by the several States (not the United States). Frankly, the source page to which I sent you is far more careful about its documentation. You can read their rebuttal to your vicarious arguments here.
The plain language of the Constitution effectively limits consideration of constitutional amendments to states in the union at the time approved by Congress. The reason is that, even if a territory reached statehood before culmination of the ratification process, that newly admitted state had no standing in the ratification process because it did not participate in the original drafting process, much less have its representatives in the Congress and the Senate to approve it. If the drafters of the Constitution meant for that legislative option to be available, it would therefore have had to stipulate the qualification in the Constitution. Such does not exist in that or any other founding document, subsequent procedures notwithstanding.
Of further interest as regards the intent of the drafters of the Constitution and TONA is documentation that the issue of lawyers drafting laws was one of the objections to adoption of the Constitution, even before it was submitted to the states. From Madison’s Notes to the Federal Convention, contained within Farrand’s, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (you'll have to do a search of Farrand's Records on the word "lawyer" within the LOC:
Mr. Elseworth, admitted that the power was not unexceptionable; but he could not view it as dangerous. Such a power with regard to the electors would be dangerous because it would be much more liable to abuse.
Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out "with regard to property" in order to leave the Legislature entirely at large.
Mr. Williamson. This could surely never be admitted. Should a majority of the Legislature be composed of any particular description of men, of lawyers for example, which is no improbable supposition, the future elections might be secured to their own body.
Mr. observed that the British Parliament possessed the power of regulating the qualifications both of the electors, and the elected; and the abuse they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention. They had made the changes in both cases subservient to their own views, or to the views of political or Religious parties.
With regard to the learned professions, little need be observed; they truly form no distinct interest in society, and according to their situation and talents, will be indiscriminately the objects of the confidence and choice of each other, and of other parts of the community.
It is a blandishment characteristic of Mr. Hamilton, no better than his defense of the Constitutional means of adopting of treaties detailed in Federalist 75.
This problem of empowering lawyers to change a social contract has been going on for a long time, just as lawyers twisted the work of the Decemviri in Rome (as Titus Livius makes very clear).