Governments have responsibilities. If the people of the state detail a government with the responsibility to secede, then I don't think the federal government has the moral authority to prevent it by force...but it can and will use illicit force to hold its power.
In a free society, that which is not forbidden is legal. Contrary to your assertions, which apply to those states which choose to remain in the Union, there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids a state from taking the step to secede.
The issue of secession was settled in 1776, when our Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I cannot see how you believe that the cited articles address this option.
Williams said "states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states."
Which was correct. And you need not go back to the Civil War - just check out Alaska's politics in the 90's.
I would support and applaud a State's right to secede. If Alaska gets fed up with Left Coast liberalism and it's duly elected legislature opts out of the Union, that's not an insurrection - it's state-of-the-art, lassiez-faire ("leave me alone" [Fr.]) capitalism.
Your entire argument is highly flawed because you missed one logical point:
Would the states have joined a union in which the central government would dictate to them the way our federal government does today by forcing rules and regulations, and huge taxes on them?
Thus, the representation of the union was different than the reality of it today.
The states entered into a union in which they expected to have great control over and states rights, but that is no longer the case.
Because the union is not working the way it was represented at the time of its establishment, the States have the natural right to remove themselves from this union, and reenter it if they so desire, with a new agreement between them and the federal government.
I offer supporting evidence from our own Congress:
This read is well worth the time it takes:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
You seek to apply the Constitution of the United States to a state that has seceded. In other words, you are applying a law to someone or something that is not in your jurisdiction. That's like saying the laws of California apply to someone living in Georgia.
But let's look at what the Constitution really says about whether the states have a right to secede, shall we?
The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Does the Constitution prohibit the states for seceding? No. As you point out, there are things they may not do while they are states, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says they may not secede.
Therefore, the Constitution clearly implies that states may secede.
Furthermore, as Professor Williams points out in his article, the question was discussed during the ratification process. People were repeatedly assured that the state retained the right to secede from the Union. This was the general understanding until Fort Sumter.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand the Constitution or our Constitutional form of government. The states are not creatures of the federal government. The federal government did not create the states. It was the other way around. The states are sovereign entities. The federal government is a creation of the states and of the people who live in them.
The states and the people who live in them may decide that they no longer want to be part of the United States.
Whether the states have a right to secede depends on who you talk to. It sure seems like the states would have that right, according to the Constitution, if it saw that the rest of the states were basically trashing the constitution. What if the required number of the states wanted to Constitutionally throw out some of the amendments?
I had also heard that the North was going to allow the South to secede until the South attacked Sumter because they didn't want a foreign fort on their border. So the North took that as an act of war, and conquered the South... much like Israel did in Palestine numerous times this century. (NOT comparing Palestinians to Southerners, but the mechanics of war were similar, if the South attacked first story is true).
These arguments are unrefutable and only the die-hard Defenders of Slaveocracy (D.S.s) even try to refute them. And we all know where their heads are.
Based on Amendment X (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.) could one or more States be ejected from the Union by the other States?
If individual States can elect to secede from the others, why can't the others elect to eject individual States?
Can we Please get rid of California, Massachusetts and some of the others (how about selected parts of them)?
I am not advocating a personal position, but just throwing something into the mix to see what accumulates at the top.
(How many can I reply to at once? Is it limited at all?)
He says: " ...some readers concluded differently" despite "... abundant evidence that most of the Founders took the right of state secession for granted."
"Spose he's paying attention?