I think it’s interesting that you bring up the Articles of Confederation.
The fact that the Articles of Confederation purported to form a perpetual union lends support, I would say, to the notion that the Constitution was not intended to be perpetual.
After all, the Founding Fathers clearly understood how to make the union perpetual—they had done so in the Articles of Confederation—so if the Constitution was intended to be perpetual, why didn’t the Founders so specify?
The Constitution was to make the Union “more perfect” — that is, to make it endure.
The Articles made the Union perpetual and the superceding Constitution was an attempt to perfect that perpetual Union.
I think that was clear at the time and the Founders made the mistake of not putting it in writing as they thought people would naturally understand where they were coming from.
They did the same thing with the BOR, which was submitted as twelve Amendments not ten. The first two weren't adopted because the Convention thought them just plain common sense. The first dealt with proportional representation which, imo, should be brought back and ratified (we are not represented today the way the Founders intended. An oligarchy is not a Republic.) and the second dealt with Congressional compensation and was adopted as the 27th Amendment in 1992.
How is it that none of the neo-Confederates on the forum ever want to dicuss Old Hickory's runin with South Carolina and his attitude towards the Union?
IMO, the South Carolinians were petrified of Andy Jackson, a son of the South, and knew he'd whip them good if they continued with their nullification or seccesion BS, and so abstained until they got a guy (Lincoln) they thought would roll over for them, not knowing that Abe was channeling Andy when it came to the question of Union.