Take that statement with the following grain of salt: The Articles of Confederation contained a perpetuity clause and then the very people who wrote it almost immediately replaced it with a constitution for which they couldn't be bothered to include another such clause. This is consistent with their positioning between the Hobbesian/Lockean poles.
Contrary to common belief, Hobbes and Locke mostly agreed that power was accumulated by means of consent and delegation. Where the disagreed was on the perpetual nature of the arrangement. Hobbes believed that The People, having given consent ONCE, were forever bound by that act of delegation because he believed in the continuity of identity of "The People" from one generation to the next, whereas Locke believed that no one generation had the authority to forever bind future generations without their consent. The Founders VERY definitely sided with Locke against Hobbes on this issue. Their use of a "Perpetual Union" clause in the Articles was, as demonstrated by both their words and deeds, an "until further notice" sort of instruction, one meant to deny the central government the power to end or alter ITSELF. It put the government under the operation of an autopilot rather than a deadman's switch.
I think you’ve misread the articles of confederation and perpetual union. It clearly does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and union, or even the perpetual articles of confederation and perpetual union. The founders and framers meant for the Union(The United States of America) to be perpetual, Or as perpetual as any man made thing can be. They new when making the articles that the form of government might change.
And the Union, so far, has been perpetual. From it’s creation on July 4th 1776, it has never ceased to exist. It has changed it form of government twice. It has added states and territories, laws and amendments, but it is still the same perpetual union.
Some will point to North Carolina and Rhode Island’s late ratification of the constitution as proof the union was not perpetual. Simple logic will show this is not the case. Though neither state were part of the government under the constitution they were both still states in the United States of America. Neither state declared itself as an independent nation. Neither sent or received ambassadors. etc., etc.
In fact the Senate, in order to force Rhode Island to adopt the constitution, passed a bill to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation in regards to trade. Why would such a bill need to be passed if it was not a part of the Union?
Thanks for making me aware of this philosophical difference between the two. And I agree with Locke. Reality agrees with Locke. Despotism agrees with Hobbes.