With that said, do you disagree that Amendment X provides the legal mechanism for state(s) secession?
??? I was specifically addressing your false statement that the union was considered "perpetual" from the get-go. My presentation regarding the ratification documents was to show that it was NOT considered "perpetual", otherwise they would not have included the provisions that they could reassume the powers. I was not arguing the legality of secession at that time. I have since been drug into the argument by NS, and I do indeed think it was legal.
With that said, do you disagree that Amendment X provides the legal mechanism for state(s) secession?
No, I do not disagree. It would be the reserved right of each State to determine the exact mechanism it employed to reassume those powers if it deemed it necessary. That is why there were differences in the various secession conventions. Each State execised it's reserved right to determine the mechanism it would employ according to the established preferences of it's citizens. They were all done democratically, by the will of the people. Nothing was required of the union, or of other States. Action, and the mechanism for it, was only required by the withdrawing State.
I answered your question, but you still have not anwered mine. Here it is again: If it was "perpetual", then why did some states specifically declare they could withdraw and reassume the rights they ceded to the union in the very documents that created the union?