Indeed, you cannot appeal to the document itself as providing its own self-sufficient authority. That would make it God. [I should not have to point it out, but on the basis of the astonishing claims made by some people here, let me state unequivocally: "The Preamble to the Constitution is not God."]
You're already out, but I'll spot you another strike. Unfortunately, your second "case" is even weaker than your first.
Here, Justice Chase argues for the indissolubility of the Federal union on the basis of: history, culture, tradition and geography, the "necessities of war," The Articles of Confederation and The Preamble.
So now, according to your alleged argument, the history, tradition, culture, and geography of the United States are part of the Constitution, as are "the necessities of war," The Articles of Confederation, and The Preamble.
None of that is in the least bit convincing [or even interesting] and is not actually part of the decision anyway. Texas made laws which, under the actual Articles of the Constitution [not The Preamble], it was not entitled to do, without any regard whatsoever for how the Union was created or how Texas got to where it was. [Note, as a matter of fact, that Chase's opinion for the majority would have been reached just as easily under The Articles of Confederation, which he specifically admits.]
The essence of the case law created here was that in violating the Article I and Article II powers granted by the Constitution, in particular the powers delegated exclusively to the Federal Government, various laws made by Texas were nullities.
There is no finding here that Texas violated part of The Preamble.
Sorry. Four strikes, and you have still found nothing in the case law which asserts a positive dispensation with respect to The Preamble. And, you will also not find that the history, tradition, culture, and geography of the United States are part of the Constitution. Nor are "the necessities of war," nor are The Articles of Confederation.
They all have the same relation to the instrument: they are foundationally important, but not the least bit a part of its instrumental legal powers.
Aha! Progress!
Hard to do when you are constantly changing what you said. Have a nice day.