According to three states that ratified the Constitution (NY, VA, RI) they could, as stated in their official convention documents ratifying the Constitution. Those statements about reassuming or resuming the powers of govenance were voted for by three experts on the Constitution, the authors of The Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.
Here, from the New York Ratification document, are the words voted for by John Jay (later first Chief Justice of the United States) and Alexander Hamilton:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.
In addition, four other states (SC, MA, NC, NH) proposed amendments in their ratifications similar to the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights that basically left powers that weren't delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively (i.e., individually), or to the people.
And here is a summation of what future Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Marshall said during the Virginia ratification convention:
The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away?
The three state ratification documents and the Tenth Amendment-like statements from 4 other states means that 7 states out of 13, a majority, wanted an out if the government under the Constitution didn't work out. The Constitution did not prohibit secession. The Constitution did not give the power to stop secession to the Federal Government or to the states that did not secede.
How is the Constitution supposed to be interpreted? The following statement by James Madison said how the Constitution should be interpreted, something the liberal justices on today's Supreme Court should remember (Source: Letter to M. L. Hurbert, May 1830.):
But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.
The ruling in Texas V. White by Chief Justice Chase (who had been in Lincoln's cabinet helping conduct the war against the seceding states, yet he didn't recuse himself) in a weak argument used Article IV to say basically that the Union was indestructible, and thus states, like Texas, never seceded. His ruling has been characterized as an ipse Dixit decision, asserted but not proven, or it is so because I say so. His decision has the force of law, but it ignored what the founders said the Constitution meant. I suppose Chase was a politician in favor of what today is called a Living Constitution, changeable to whatever you want it to mean.
Thank you for the considerable effort you took with your reply. It saved me a lot of time when I read the responses this morning. Very well done.
Rusty, you well know the key word here is "necessary", and no Founder, none, believed secession "at pleasure" was constitutional or lawful.
Indeed, secession "at pleasure" is the very definition of the word "rebellion", and every major Founder, without exception, took decisive actions against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" or treason:
Clearly, our Founders fully understood the difference between lawful secession and rebellion, and were totally intolerant of the latter.
So, did Founders believe in lawful secession?
Of course they did, just as their new "more perfect" Constitution of 1787 "seceded" from the old Articles of Confederation "perpetual union".
So, what was lawful secession?
Well, Madison's considered opinion explained it best.
Madison said secession, or disunion, were valid under two circumstances:
Did either of those conditions apply in 1861?
No, not even close.
So those declarations of secession were "at pleasure".
Could either apply today?
Sure -- Congress could lawfully approve any state's request for secession, or a convention of states could carve out whole regions into separate countries.
What about unapproved, unilateral declarations of secession?
No, those remain today, as they were to our Founders, acts of rebellion, insurrection and/or treason.