Perhaps you are thinking of John Dickinson's July 12, 1776, draft of the Articles of Confederation, which says in part:
ART. III.
Each Colony shall retain and enjoy as much of its present Laws, Rights and Customs, as it may think fit, and reserves to itself the sole and exclusive Regulation and Government of its internal police, in all matters that shall not interfere with the Articles of this Confederation.
The states rejected Dickinson's wording. See the following account of Thomas Burke:
At present, nothing but executive business is done, except the Confederation, and on mere executive business there are seldom any debates; (and still more seldom any worth remembering.)
We have agreed to three articles: one containing the name: the second a declaration of the sovereignty of the States, and an express provision that they be considered as retaining every power not expressly delegated; and the third an agreement mutually to assist each other against every enemy.
The first and latter passed without opposition or dissent, the second occasioned two days debate. It stood originally the third article; and expressed only a reservation of the power of regulating the internal police, and consequently resigned every other power.
It appeared to me that this was not what the States expected, and, I thought, it left it in the power of the future Congress or General Council to explain away every right belonging to the States and to make their own power as unlimited as they please. I proposed, therefore an amendment, which held up the principle, that all sovereign power was in the States separately, and that particular acts of it, which should be expressly enumerated, would be exercised in conjunction, and not otherwise; but that in all things else each State would exercise all the rights and power of sovereignty, uncontrolled.
This was at first so little understood that it was some time before it was seconded, and South Carolina first took it up. The opposition was made by Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. R. H. Lee of Virginia: in the end, however, the question was carried for my proposition, eleven ayes, one no, and one divided. The no was Virginia; the divided, New Hampshire.
I was much pleased to find the opinion of accumulating powers to Congress so little supported, and I promise myself, in the whole business I shall find my ideas relative thereto nearly similar to those of most of the States. In a word, Sir, I am of opinion, the Congress should have power enough to call out and apply the common strength for the common defense: but not for the partial purposes of ambition.
We shall next proceed to the structure of the common Councils; and here, I think, we shall meet with difficulties of the most arduous nature. The inequality of the States, and yet the necessity of maintaining their separate independence, will occasion dilemmas almost inextricable. You shall, Sir, know the whole progress of the matter if I can conceive and convey it with sufficient clearness."
[Source: Thomas Burke to Governor Caswell, 29 April, 1777. North Carolina Colonial Records, XI, 461.]
No I am referring to the meaning of the 10th it was speaking of state laws and regulations relating STRICTLY to state and local issues not national ones.
Of course you cannot accept this because it disembowels the spurious claim that there was a "right" to secede contained therein. Such a ridiculous claim would have made the document meaningless.