First, saying one ad is “the most accurate” pretty much admits that the other ads have innacuracies. You can be the “most” if others are not “less”.
Further, the “most accurate” ad wasn’t accurate. In fact, the constitution clearly says that the right of a state’s membership in the union is held by Congress. “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;”. The only time the state legislatures are allowed to be involved in this process is if the state is being taken from another state, or if two existing states are merging.
If congress has the right to vote on admitting states, then it seems clear that, if there were a right for a state to leave, that right would be held by congress as well.
But in fact, nothing at all is mentioned about states leaving. You can either assume that they never expected a state to want to leave, or they purposely didn’t allow states to leave, or that they felt states could leave whenever they wanted.
But that last interpretation would make the entire fight over the original 13 states joining up to be a farce. Why would you enter protracted arguments and world-changing compromises to convince some state to enter the union, if you expected they could simply vote themselves back out next year? Why not instead simply ask South Carolina to vote for the union in return for paying them some money and letting them quit immediately?
Accurate is one of those words, like unique, that can't be modified. It either is or it is not accurate, period. One thing can be more nearly accurate than something else but it can't not be more accurate or less accurate.
Good post.
Remember, the Founders were quite explicit in their views that the new Constitution, like the old Articles of Confederation was "perpetual" and "forever."
We can see this directly in a letter from Virginian James Madison to his friend Alexander Hamilton in New York, advising Hamilton that the new Constitution must be ratified in whole (no conditions) and "forever."
"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...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."