You will note that "We the People" did not ratify the Constitution, but the individual states did in their separate ratifying conventions. The "lumpen" people did not form the Union or ratify the Constitution.
The "more perfect Union" does not have any prohibition against secession. It wouldn't have been "more perfect" if it had outlawed secession and left states oppressed by a majority of other states with no recourse except to fight their way out. If the Constitution had outlawed secession, it would not have been ratified, as I've said before.
In addition to Va, RI, and NY saying that they understood the Constitution to mean that they could reassume their own governance, the following states insisted on various forms of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment, the basis of the right to secede:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
That makes a total of seven states, a majority of the then Union. More states than that eventually ratified the Tenth Amendment.
Your contempt for the people is noted, but hardly universal. As Chief Justice Marshall noted:
"In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states-and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments."
The "more perfect Union" does not have any prohibition against secession. It wouldn't have been "more perfect" if it had outlawed secession and left states oppressed by a majority of other states with no recourse except to fight their way out. If the Constitution had outlawed secession, it would not have been ratified, as I've said before.
Nothing in it supports the idea of secession without the consent of the other states, either.
In addition to Va, RI, and NY saying that they understood the Constitution to mean that they could reassume their own governance, the following states insisted on various forms of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment, the basis of the right to secede...
Well...they were wrong.
True, but only up to a point. Both the Declaration -- "We hold these thruths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." and the Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." both were written in the names of -- and appealed for support to -- all Americans, not just the Congress or of the States.
And all Americans eventually responded -- indeed, if you look at the percentages, nearly half as many Americans served & died voluntarily in the Revolutionary War as conscripted Southerners served and died in the Civil War. Think about that...
"That makes a total of seven states, a majority of the then Union. More states than that eventually ratified the Tenth Amendment."
Just so we're clear here, I don't dispute the 10th Amendment in any way, except the claim by secessionists that it somehow provides a "get out of Union free card," to any state whenever it wakes up in the morning with political PMS. ;-)
Sorry, pal, but I just don't buy that, for reasons which we've reviewed here time and again...