Of course you are.
I see no difficulty in having a nation that requires the consent of the governed. When they lose that consent, it becomes more the relationship between master and slave.
We're talking about the states being nations by the modern sense of the term. Nations, as we define them today, can do dozens of things that make them sovereign nations which are denied to the states.
I guess this is your way of saying you can't find a single document from around 1787 that supports your claim that the constitution forbids independence.
I never said the Constitution forbids independence. What I'm saying that just because some states made assumptions in their ratification documents doesn't make those assumptions legal under the Constitution.
If you could read it for yourself, I wouldn't have to bother.
Nations, as we define them today, can do dozens of things that make them sovereign nations which are denied to the states.
They weren't denied to them in 1787. The power always resides in the people, and it was simply on loan to the central government until Lincoln took it permanently in the 1860s.
I never said the Constitution forbids independence.
And you can't, because it doesn't. There is no supporting documents for this claim, but there are supporting documents to prove the contrary.
What I'm saying that just because some states made assumptions in their ratification documents...
The Declaration of Independence clearly makes their position the default reality at that time. The "assumption" is that a nation founded on the right to independence could deny states that right by claiming the constitution forbids it.
*THAT* is the position that has to be proven with some sort of supporting evidence.