“By tyrant, I mean the other states that would force the unwilling state to stay in union,”
If one has kept one’s part of an agreement (debatable), it is not tyranny to require another party to the agreement to keep their part, willingly or not, or suffer a penalty.
“… the states’ authority has been usurped by the feds.”
That is a problem.
“…it contains 2 separate conditions for secession, each sufficient without the other.”
Neither of which amounts to “always”.
“…(or federal government) were to violate the contract of the union…”
Disagree with including the federal government there. The Union doesn’t need the federal government in order to remain the Union, the federal government can’t violate the contract of the Union except as a deputy of some of the States, and if it gets out of line the States should bring it back into line. The problem there of course is that the States have allowed their deputy, their creation, to usurp their authority.
Were gonna make 1000 on this one.....
I agree. It is only the 'debatable' part that we may disagree upon. And in that case the following applies:
"or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the Compact."
The compact is dissolved by the violation or abuse. Therefore a state has the right to secede. The question of debate is whether such abuse has occurred or not, not whether if it has occured, secession may proceed.
In sum, if you agree with what you quoted, then we agree on all except whether such violation has occurred. In this case each state and its sovereign people, not you or i or all the forums in the Republic, are the final judge and should be respected.
For further clarity, let's say such abuses occur, in principle the compact would be dissolved though in actuality the dissolution would only be realized with the secession of some states.