You as well:
"As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."Whoever he was, he certainly argued that states of the new union could change their republican form of government. That's stated pretty plainly.
Now let's examine the reasoning, legal or otherwise, that allowed the states to secede from the Articles of Confederation:
"The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member."Pretty self explanatory as well. Again, whomever he was, he argued that to prevent a single state from preventing the new Constitution from being formed, the rights of the other states to determine their own form of government supersedes the Articles of Confederation. Please remember that one state did not send delegates to the Constitutional convention. Continuing he asks:
"On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?"He's obviously struggling to rationalizing the illegal abolition of the Articles, but how can it be justified? :
"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."I guess that the "perpetual" union of the Articles, which required unanimous consent to be modified, are not inviolate by any stretch of the imagination. He continues again to assuage his rationalization:
"[A] breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted?"No doubt about it. At least one person put pen to paper regarding the legality of secession and disunion. And in no uncertain words, plain enough for even you to understand. Of course, you probably think that it was Davis, Toombs, Stephens or some other confederate.
Who said it? James Madison, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 43, "The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered", 23 Jan 1788.