The only way for a state to secede lawfully is through the amendment process in Article V.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the Arts. of Confed were a big flop and people -knew- they were a big flog at the time They in many cases reluctantly agreed to the United States taking a national form under the Constitution. But they knew that was what was being done.
The framers -clearly- wanted to establish nationality and Washington, Madison and Jefferson are only the most prominent.
A state may NOT leave the union unilaterally. To suggest it may perverts what the framers intended.
A whole blizzard of obscure quotations cannot change what the framers wanted.
People shouldn't let dissatisfaction with the government today cloud ther view of what the framers intended.
The Confederatist argument appears to be "I'm right and if you don't agree whatever happens is on your head." This is pretty much bound to produce problems. A more moderate, peaceful and pragmatic course would be advisible and produce better results for all concerned.
Given all that's happened since, secession looks to have been a bad choice. Both the means and the end of the secessionists were deeply flawed. I don't think that they had a right to secede at will, but even if they did, taking that option was a mistake, and would have been a mistake even if they had not started the war or if the Union had let them leave. There are different ways in which one can be wrong and right. Confederatists rarely question the wisdom or justice of secession. But that's something that ought to be more seriously examined.
Where there is no clearly established and accepted means of severing the Union, acting prudently and responsibly becomes important. Arguably, the union could have been dissolved constititutional amendment. This would have been a better path to take, as it would have been more generally accepted, would have allowed for an equitable arrangement of the details, and would have allowed heads to cool.
Respectfully, it was not any British attempt to stop the "secession" of the American colonies that produced the American Revolution. Rather, it was the British attempt to disarm the militia that produced a war. The Colonists stood up for their rights as Englishmen. The question of independence only came along later in the midst of war. From a practical point of view, people's opinions about the war would have been very different if the shooting hadn't been initiated by the secessionists themelves.
The Confederacy has some major moral burdens to shoulder. A lot of people today are inclined to regard questions of race and slavery as America's common heritage and burden. But when the "South is Right" school comes out portraying the Confederacy as a moral lamb innocent and justified in everything beset by the Yankee wolf, it does tend to produce ill-will. There's certainly enough blame to attach to Southern political elites both for their ends and for the means they used to attain them. One may find fault with the other side as well and also find much to praise in the courage and loyalty of Confederate troops, but the Confederatist whitewash and the anti-Unionist cult do as much to muddy the waters as any one else does.
I share your concern about globalism today. Perhaps if I'd been alive in the 19th century, I'd have had similar concerns about the growing power of the national government. Certainly, in the 20th century the federal government went too far into things that could better be handled by the state or local governments or the private sector. But how I would have reacted in 1860 would have depended much more on the specific circumstances and events of the time, rather than on what happened fifty or 100 years later. Decent and honorable people came to different conclusions in 1860, and one possible conclusion is that the Confederate leaders were overstepping their bounds and acting unconstitutionally and belligerently.