Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the union formed under the Articles of Confederation was dissolved with the signing of the Constitution.
Since Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation says that if every state legislature agrees to a change, then the Articles will be considered changed, and every state legislature adopted the new Constitution, then the articles should be considered "changed." And the new Constitution says nothing about a "perpetual union."
The Articles were changed. The union was not. The form of government was drastically modified, but the union was not dissolved. It was, in the words of the Constitution, made "more perfect." The Constitution does not mention the "perpetual union" because it already existed. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution does not formally name the union. (Article 1 of the AofC states "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'".) It does, however, invoke the name of the United States of America because, again, it already existed.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention dissolving the union. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the perpetual nature of the union will be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for seceding from the union. One could argue that the tenth amendment gives states the right to secede implicitly, but that would run counter to the perpetual nature of the union. Such a right does not exist.
Our legal system is common law. Under such a system, precedent is as important - or more important - than civil legislation. Our early courts cited English case law as precedent, even though the U.S. rejected England. That is because under the concept of common law, precedent establishes the basis for legal interpretation. When a state enters into the union, it does not require a change to the Constitution. The state is expected to come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution in it's form at the time of admittance. All of the case law attached to it is immediately relevant to the new state. The Articles of Confederation were a legal agreement entered unanimously by the colonies. That union was not dissolved. While the form of government was changed, the form of the union itself was not. The Articles of Confederation, as far as they were not specifically superseded by the Constitution and subsequent case law, is still valid precedent.
As a matter of fact, Virginia held out on the new Constitution until they were insured that it did not forbid them from seceding.
That is an interesting statement. It does not sound inconsistent with the Southern temperment. I would be interested in reading about that. What is your source?