[4CJ]

Your conclusions, therefore, in #(1) and #(5), do not reasonably follow from the premise of the Articles.

Sorry. #1 was 'The "perpetual" Articles were replaced, i.e. were terminated .'

Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new Government did not commence until the old Government expired.
Chief Justice John Marshall, Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 419 (1820)

What "union" were the states members of from 1 Nov 1788 through 4 Mar 1789? Even then, when the new government formed, were the other 2 excluded states members of this new "union" despite having NOT ratified? If North Carolina and Rhode Island & Providence Plantations NEVER ratified would they be in that same union? To have a "union", one must have a common bond. The government is that bond. The government was dissolved. James Wilson, on 30 Jun 1787 stated, 'If a minority should refuse their assent to the new plan of a general government, and if they will have their own will, and without it separate the Union, let it be done.'

[capitan_refugio]

The last of the "Congresses of the Confederation" met in session, in New York City, from 3 Nov 1788 - 2 Mar 1789. The first elections held under the newly ratified Constitution of 1787 had taken place in November 1788. The Confederation congress provided for an orderly transition from a confederal government under the Articles to a federal government under the Constitution, setting the date for March 4, 1789. Indeed, the 1st Congress began its organizational meetings on February 4, 1789. If I am not mistaken, they even met in the same building (now "Federal Hall") in NYC.

As I have posted on this thread, NO state's representatives were "excluded" from the 1st Constitutional Congress. That Congress provided for Rhode Island and North Carolina by alloting them seats.

Hypothetically, if Rhode Island or North Carolina had continued to refuse to ratify the Constitution and "separated" from the "union," it certainly would have been with the consent of the other eleven.

Let me state, that although North Carolina had at first voted to reject the new Constitution, the sentiment changed when the 1st Congress proposed for State ratification the Bill of Rights. North Carolina in convention, ratified the Constitution on Nov 21, 1789 (one day after New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights). Then, operating under the full fellowship of the Union, North Carolina ratified the BoR on December 22, 1789, becoming the third state to do so.

Rhode Island, on the other hand, was a "basket case." Strong internal political divisions prevented Rhode Island from even holding a convention of the people. The "anti-federalist" majority in the State Assembly had attempted to provide a legislative vote on ratification, in contradiction to the terms of the new Constitution. The "pro-federalists" in the Assembly boycotted the session. (It was during this time that the Governor, in behalf of the anti-federalist legislature, sent the whiney letter {which has been posted here several times} to President Washington and the federal government.) Ultimately, it was the realization of the Rhode Islanders that they were quickly becoming a failed state, and that areas with "pro-federalist" majorities were negotiating annexation with neighboring members of the Constitutional Union, that led them to hold a ratification convention. Rhode Island ratified by the narrow majority of 34-32, and then, only because some of the "anti-federalists" abstained in the voting.

You are correct that one of the bonds that holds the Union is the "national" goverment (usage in today's terminology, rather than Madison's terminolgy, so we don't confuse you-know-who). But the roots of American nationalism (another type of bond) pre-date the Declaration of Independence.