: The real question is whether "the enactment and
: publication of the laws of Virginia", including in the
: published laws a copy of the Constitution whose text
: incorpoates this purported amendment, legally constitutes
: ratification of that amendment."

The following explanation covers part of this question: the Revised Code was the complete review and revisal of the laws of Virginia, including matters "pretermitted" during the long process and involved every matter basic to the law of the State:

"The assertion that Virginia's General Assembly members were unacquainted with the contents of the Revised Codes is refuted by the Revisal Committee reports to the Legislature. The Committee was diligent about keeping the members of the legislature informed of its progress revising and reorganizing Virginia's codes, providing the House of Delegates and the Senate each with a copy of the work in progress. The Act of March 12, 1819 was the culmination of this effort. This is well presented in both the Legistrative History and Legislative Extracts sections of this treatise."

On February 2nd of 1811, the Legislature enrolled the Thirteenth Amendment as a pending bill, and on the 4th the House of Delegates sent the matter over to the Virginia Senate. There the pending bill was not agreed to by virtue of a tie vote, and the matter was laid upon the table. It was never removed from its status as an enrolled bill, only pretermitted in later years.

: This state of affairs could have resulted if the members of
: the Legislature were operating under the mistaken belief

: that the amendment in question had already been ratified by
: other states, and that Virginia's vote was not needed. They
: would have pubished a copy of the Constitution as they
: believed it to be, which it seems is what they did.

That is not what happened, although confusion about the status of the Amendment in 1818 was the subject of an inquiry in the House of Representatives.

: In the days before electronic communication, this kind of
: misperception is quite plausible.

The members of State Legislatures were extraordinarily well informed about developments and votes taken in other States: it is true that mistakes were made, and the Amendment was published as being ratified in advance of the actual date, but those mistakes do not impair or impeach the lawful votes of both houses of the Virginia legislature. Every section, phrase and word in the Revised Code was considered, and all important sections had marginal notations added for quick and ready reference.

"Additionally, the presence of cross-referenced side notes on pages 20, 21 and 30 of the Revised Codes book clearly and unequivocally demonstrate attention to the presence of the Titles of Nobility Article as the latest amendment to the constitution of the United States."

The article of amendment was approved by a vote taken "en bloc," which is well within the sovereign rights of Virginia and its legislature. It was reviewed, annotated, ordered to be printed and approved by a lawful vote of a lawfully seated legislature. Its publication was provided for at public expense, and all law officers in the State were designated to receive copies of the Revised Code, as were the correct federal authorities.

: Concerning the issue of whether it is 3/4 of the states which
: existed when a proposed amendment was submitted to the
: states by Congress, or 3/4 of the states existing when the
: last of them ratifies an amendment, that is required for an
: amendment to become part of the Constitution: the 27th
: Amendment, which prohibits Congress from raising the
: salaries of its members until after the next Congressional
: election, became effective on May 7, 1992, when it was
: ratified by the State of Michigan, which became the 38th
: state to ratify it. It had originally been proposed, as
: part of the Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. But at no
: point until Michigan's ratification in 1992 had it been
: ratified by 3/4 of all states existing at the time, so it
: didn't take effect until then. Michigan, of course, was not
: a state in 1791. So apparently it is 3/4 of current states
: which are needed to ratify an amendment, not 3/4 of the
: states which existed when the amendment was proposed ....

Unfortunately, this is wrong: the so-called 27th Amendment was duly ratified when ten of the original Thirteen States approved it, as the adoption of the Bill of Rights shows. Vermont was not in the union when it was proposed, it did take it up and ratify it, but the date the Bill of Rights was declared corresponds to the date of approval by Virginia, which was six weeks later in December of 1791. Curiously enough, there was no concern for, nor ever a rush to approve that Amendment until David Dodge and Tom Dunn started peppering certain Congressmen and Senators -- and the officials at the National Archives -- with inquiries and questions on this section and its lawful status.

None of the States admitted to the union while Virginia was revising its law and its Code (and South Carolina was sitting on its hands), ever inquired as to their "rights" to ratify it at the time, and their Senators never objected to having their Legislatures, which elected them, left out of the process. And, every one of these States published the original Thirteenth as being ratifed -- at public expense -- more than once! They all recognized it, including the Territory of Florida in 1823.

Federal reviews taken in the late 1800s also confirm that the members of Congress then seated did not consider that any number beyond thirteen of the seventeen States as of 1810 was necessary for its approval. They simply disregarded the presence of the Revised Code of 1819, even though scholars of the era from 1912 through 1918 considered it to be an "invaluable" reference work.

Check the chronology of the Amendment, it will become clear to you that the approval of the 27th is disinformation designed to change the rules well after the fact. The article was lawfully ratified and lawfully recognized by many other States and Territories, and by private publishers. It was the pro-slavery lawyers and the Philadelphia attorneys loyal to James Buchanan would refused to recognize it, or to even mention it, after about 1847 (and after both Andrew Jackson and the great Federalists had all died). Their sabotage, their demolition by neglect, does not trump the lawful actions of freely elected State Legislatures.