The information is very accessable and I do not believe you don't have the ability to confirm my dates on your own. My sourcing common knowledge for every fact in this debate is not the issue.
Response: Again, you are the one who questioned the accuracy of my material. It's a two way street.
"The term perpetual means ongoing, as in the union was not formed for a finite term, say 10 years or a hundred years. It was to continue unless the states modified it or withdrew"
Your translation of 18th Century words is not quite correct- and again misleading.
From a period dictionary---"A Dictionary of the English Language" By Samuel Johnson, 3rd Edition, London, 1768
PERPETUAL, a.[perpetuel, Fr. perpetuus, Lat.] 1. Never ceasing; eternal with respect to futurity. 2. Continual; uninterrupted; perennial Arbuthnot. 3. Perpetual screw. A screw which acts against the teeth of a wheel, and continues its action without end. Wilkins.
Response: Look at definition number 2. Besides, we are talking legal terminology. In the common law of contracts perpetual means as opposed to a definite term. For example, a contract without an explicit term (1 year, 10 years, etc) is to continue perpetually until the parties renounce the contract whether mutually or separately depending on the terms of the contract. Since the AoC was a "league", that is, a voluntary association, it follows that the compact could be unilaterally renounced. In this case, it was renounced by 11 of the 13 parties(states) upon the adoption of the Constitution. That left the remaining parties (states) free to choose whether or not to continue or withdraw themselves.
Your adding concepts that do not exist in the AOC or history.
Response: No, I am not.
North Carolina and Rhode Island did not exit the AOC prior to their dates of ratification- there is no clause in the AOC that states such an event; unless a document exist where during the period between 1787 and their dates of ratification of the U.S. Constitution proving that relation altered.
Response: I never said they officially left the AoC union. I said they defaulted to independence. They did. Were RI and NC a separate United States? Did they have a separate congress? Did they still have to defer to the non-existent Confederation Congress on matters delegated to that government? Did they have delegates representing them in a national Confederation Congress? Your own case cite says otherwise. It says they were foreign powers between themselves and the U.S. Are you seriously arguing that they were not free to form their own republic? Or to remain independent? Was there reason to believe that the other 11 states would have invaded and compelled their membership had they chosen not to ratify? Follow the logic.
Your also misreading my post from the Supreme Court. It states that
A. "it will appear that the States, individually, regulated their foreign commerce and duties, and were in this respect foreign sovereigns to each other, and they maintained this relation until the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." -
B. "the position of North Carolina and of Rhode Island was that of foreign Slates, as to the United States, and they were so treated by the Congress of the United States, under the Constitution."
C. "Rhode Island and North Carolina were, therefore, until they adopted the Constitution of the United States, foreign to the United States, and to the laws of Congress, and were outside of all provisions in regard to commerce and duties unless expressly named in the statutes of Congress."
In statement A- pertains to the laws of the AOC and their relations in foreign commerce and duties and that they contintued under this law until they adopted the U.S. Constitution.
In statement B and C and all the rest of the statements it never states Rhode Island or North Carolina independent of each other nor does it say they where in or out of the AOC- only how they were in relation to the United States- foreign.
Response: Are we reading different things? It says "states", plural, repeatedly. It states that they were "in this respect foreign sovereigns to each other". What other respects were there? I never said that the states operated completely independently as a practical matter. In fact, I stated clearly that many if not most of their citizens never stopped considering themselves members of the U.S. I would imagine, since I am not an expert on this specifically, that there was never really any intention to go it alone for RI and NC. My point is that should they have chosen that, they were free to do so because they were independent actors with the sovereign right to decide their own destiny. They were independent states, they were sovereign. They were not a separate union and I doubt many seriously considered themselves so. And, of course, they had no common government any longer. Their former government had become the Congress, judiciary and executive under the Constitution. The only law making and executive they answered to were their own state governments.