Try again. A conditional ratification is no ratification. Since the state's intent was to ratify and since they clearly state that they ratified the Constitution as passed and agreed to be bound by it, then their ratification was not conditional and their belief that they could walk out at a whim was in error. Regardless of what you or they may have thought.
Try again. A conditional ratification is no ratification. Since the state’s intent was to ratify and since they clearly state that they ratified the Constitution as passed and agreed to be bound by it, then their ratification was not conditional and their belief that they could walk out at a whim was in error. Regardless of what you or they may have thought.
No need to try again. If a conditional ratification is no ratification.....and he never claimed their ratifications were defective ie “no ratification” and they reserved the right to secede which obviously they did, then unilateral secession is by even his view at the time not inconsistent with the constitution - not that his view is controlling since they and not he were parties to the compact.
If their reservations were in error, it was incumbent upon the other states to say so. None did. They all accepted ratification with the express reservation of a right to unilateral secession.