I DON”T read it THAT way.
If the Tenth Amendment reserves to the People and the States those powers not clearly designated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not clearly FORBID secession, the States have that right.
As I POINTED OUT, several of the articles of incorporation by individual states of the Constitution, particularly Virginia’s and New York’s CLEARLY specify that the state reserves the right to withdraw from the Constitution should it feel its rights are infringed.
The fact that the Federal Government WHEN IT HAD JEFFERSON DAVIS in its power, REFUSED to try him for Treason indicates that there was serious fear that the Courts WOULD NOT consider him a Traitor as he was involved in exercising rights the Constitution clearly did not forbid.
See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
Read the FIRST PARAGRAPH CAREFULLY.
Since this ratification document was accepted, its terms were, by its acceptance, extended to all the other states which so ratified the Constitution.
New York State had a similar provision in its document of ratification and so did at least one other state.
There is no reason why a state cannot legally secede from the Union.
You claim that “the states” have rights that were reserved in the tenth amendment to “the states, and the people”.
That is, as best, error. I refer you to Texas v. White, which explains that “the people” is not just the people of one state, but rather, the people of the whole US.
The territory of the US is the sovereign possession of the whole people. No state (say, SC) can unilaterally remove rights of a person of the US (say a person of NY), as stated in the constitution by the Privileges and Immunities clause. Devolving a part of the US, as the rebels pretended to do is not not something within their authority. Rather, by pretending to have that authority, and by raising armies in time of peace, they violated the constitution and started an insurrection which ended their legitimate authority, but did not end the US claim to the land and people formerly of their state.
Secession is possible, but not unilateral action by a state, rather only by federal action: perhaps by federal legislation, by federal treaty, and certainly by constitutional amendment.
In your document, the rights are referred to being those of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, and certainly not to the State of Virginia. The reservations to ratification in said document do not claim a unilateral right for states to secede.
Pointing to that as justification of unilateral state succession as was pretended by states in 1860 is either simple error, or deliberate intention by you to mislead. Which is it?