It isn't the legitimacy of the documents I'm questioning. I do however question whether anybody agrees with your interpretation of those documents. You interpret them as establishing it as "clear fact" that the union was split in two when states ratified the Constitution. I asked for any Constitutional scholar who supported that interpretation, but you have yet to produce one. Handwaving to a book without citing even one instance contained in it will not suffice.
Try this. Identify a single passage of the Constitution that I have quoted here, and my so-called "interpretation" of it - and show the discrepancy between what it says and means, and my "interpretation." And use actual quotes.
Again, it is necessary to point out that Dreamregent answered my question as to whether he felt free to "interpret" the word "stop" to mean "go." He said, "yes." And you have expressed no problem with that. It appears that you objection is not to the methods of so-called interpretation, very with the results. As long as one reaches the right result, method of interpretation doesn't draw any criticism from you.
As to so-called "scholars," where is there any discrepancy between my so-called "interpretation" and that of Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. At first blush, I have no trouble relying on them, as my expert witnesses, along with other Founders and Framers. You should consider that in a real trial or mock trial, your experts - credible sources and scholars, as you call them - will be subject to Daubert Hearings and cross examinations. So, if your sources have a substantive argument, you should post it here. I'll look at these arguments on their own merits; and tell you why these arguments are or are not an impediments to Davis's lawfulness of secession defense. All expert witnesses have credentials.
It is true that there is no single clause regarding the lawfulness or non-lawfulness of secession. Everyone knows this. All those who argued against secession lawfulness here, drew inferences drew inferences from nothing, which I called - implied by the wind. You had no objection to it.
I would argue that I am not inferring or interpreting, but just reading exact words for exactly what they state. It is not Code Blue that says the only authority of the federal government is that which is specifically delegated - and not one power more - because every other right and power is retained by the States (and no power preventing secession is delegated). It is the Constitution that says that. It is not Code Blue that says a State may repeal its own enactments unless such would be on the list of powers prohibited to the States. It is the Constitution that says that. It is not Code Blue that says the ratification were conditional, but the ratification documents themselves that so state. At some point, you need to acknowledge that words have meanings, and that stop means stop all by itself and required no "inference" from Code Blue.
I would also like to point that the context in which I am posting is the mock trial of Jefferson Davis, and how his defense that secession is legal would work. So, if there were an objective adjudication on this, I wonder if you recognize the degree to which you willingness to let all manner of wild speculative (mis)interetation pass unchallenged while trying imply I am creating an interpretation that is something other than the exact text of the documents - would undermine your credibility with those doing the judging.
The union did not cease to exist at any time in the late 18th century, nor were there two unions. The same union continued to exist, bound more firmly together by ratification of the Constitution. You have yet to give firm support for any claim to the contrary.
And to be crystal clear, I am not claiming there are two unions per se, just that it looks like two unions. It walks, talks, and quacks like two unions. If you can prove there is only one, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. Then perhaps you have taken a step closer to proving the South could not legally seceded and that Davis was not a foreign combatant instead of traitor. It is also your uphill climb to show that Madison in Federalist 43 is not describing how 13 States could secede from the Perpetual Union of 1781. I find him to be a "credible source" on this issue. Don't you?
And to take just one more swing at "credible sources." In a real adjudication, the advocate making the case has to establish a personal credibility with the jury or finders of fact. One can implacably post absurdity in a chat room and it has little apparent effect. However, if one wishes to argue in front of real live supposedly objective judges that there is a household with 9 members and a familial hierarchy and a household with 4 members.and a familial hierarchy - but it is really 1 household??? Or say that you have the prerogative to interpret that "stop" implies "go"??? In my opinion, that advocates personal credibility would be so destroyed that it could not be revived by expert witness.