I suppose the New York ratification delegates didn't get it either. From the New York ratification of the Constitution, July 26, 1788:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.
You've admitted to me in the past that the Constitution would not have been ratified if it said that secession was not permitted. I don't think the New York or Virginia delegates would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and the Union as we know it would not have come to be.
I don't recall saying that, but I have said that I believe secession is legal if done within the bounds of the Constitution. That is, with the consent of a majority of all the parties impacted.
I don't think the New York or Virginia delegates would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and the Union as we know it would not have come to be.
We all know how Madison felt on conditional ratification. He believed it was not ratification at all. Either the Constitution was ratified as is, or it was not. No ifs or buts. But let's look at that ratification document in more detail. There was this understanding: "That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power." Well that didn't happen, a standing army was specifically permitted under the Constitution and was maintained from the very beginning. The document also contained this clause: "That the Prohibition contained in the said Constitution against en post facto Laws, extends only to Laws concerning Crimes." Well that didn't happen either, the prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to all laws. So does that mean that New York didn't really ratify the Constitution? Not at all. Because even with all the qualifiers the document contained the phrase, "We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution." They assented to the Constitution as written, and that document trumps all other laws, constitutions and, yes, ratification documents. What they thought the Constitution meant doesn't matter. And if they operated under mistaken impressions that still doesn't release them from their obligations and restrictions under the Constitution.