David,
1. I never said the date of ratification was not as you said. What I stated was the date of certification from the confederation congress. You responded that this was not correct an proceeded to give the date of ratification. They are not the same thing. The date of certification of ratification and the date of ratification, that is, the date the ninth state ratified are not the same thing.

2. You said the date in my wikipedia quote was wrong. You did not prove that nor did you provide any cites for what you did state, that is, the date of ratification. I am not doubting your information, just pointing out that if you are going to impeach someone's information and counter, you should source that.

3. You are simply wrong that the states not ratifying when the constitution took effect were still under the AoC. The case you excerpted made that pretty clear when it specifically stated that the remaining states were considered foreign powers between themselves as well as the new union. You cite Article XIII of the AoC but I think you are misreading that article. The term perpetual does not mean forever with no ability to withdraw from the AoC union. 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. Also, the sentence that me be confusing is the one that says :

"And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of EVERY State."

When it says that " no alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them" it meant no alteration in the articles and not no alteration in the states. The states were sovereign and could withdraw as is made clear in Article IIbut the Articles themselves could not be altered with unanimous consent.

4. Article II makes it abundantly clear:��
"ARTICLE II��
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

So, a sovereign state, who delegates some of it's powers to a "league of friendship" has by natural right the ability to withdraw that consent and those delegated powers when it so chooses. Upon the termination of the AoC and the commencement of the constitutional union, the states who had not consented to the new union and its governing document reverted to their natal position as sovereign states.

5. My final argument here is that the AoC includes no prohibition for secession or withdrawal, and no statement that the states had surrendered their autonomy. Seeing as how any non enumerated powers were retained by the states and the ability to prevent secession or a reversion to sovereign independence is clearly not among those delegated powers, the power to secede and the power to revert to an independent sovereign state were also retained by the states. Hence, they reverted to their natural and original condition upon the cessation of compact through the AoC; that is, separate, independent and sovereign.�