The point is if one can say a state can leave without the consent of the other states because the Constitution does not specifically prevent it then states can get together and expel another state against its will because the Constitution does not explicitly prevent that either. True?
As my previous post indicated, all ousting one can harm the one while one freely leaving the others does no harm to the rest.
Doesn't it? Say Texas walked out tomorrow, you claim that there would be no harm to the rest of the states. But what about obligations the country entered into while Texas was as state? Treaties, Iraq, Afghanistan, all have to be borne by the other states because Texas has walked out of it. What about debt built up while Texas was a part of the country, aided in no small part by three recent Texan presidents? Texas has walked out on it leaving the remaining states to pick up the slack. What about federal property that Texas walks off with, highways and dams and what have you built with federal funds? Texas walks out with all that and no compensation for the other states. Social security, pensions, and the like, will the remaining states have to pay those to Texas residents while Texas gets off scott free?
States don't exist in a vacuum. Their actions impact the interests and well-being of the states around them. That includes when they leave.
IIRC, the issue arose when the rural South decided to buy equipment, specifically farm equipment, from England rather than from the manufacturers of such equipment in New England. The issue was price with the farmers thinking they were being gouged. Rather than lower their prices, the Northern manufacturers and politicians prevailed with Lincoln and the Congress and a tariff was impose on those manufactured products coming from England. That started the whole ruckus and Lincoln blockaded the ports to prevent the foreign products from being off loaded.
I think you recall incorrectly.
What if a state had not supported the treaties and other government programs you describe? As independent republics joined in an agreed upon union are they obligated to uphold things they disagreed with and did not support?
I know what the answers are today since we have strayed so far from original intent in so many areas but I am thinking about the original agreement and what the signers thought they were agreeing to.
While I do research to refresh my memory of courses I took 50 - 60 years ago why don't you tell me what the Tariff of Abomination was about and why Lincoln blockaded the Southern ports?