I did from posts 900 to 1150. That was a mere synopsis. The fundamental problem is that if the contract has been violated, those who violated it cannot be judges of the case. There is no higher authority (unless --I dare not think, less utter it -- the UN). Since each state is sovereign (wherefore we each live under 2 constitutions), each state which in principle is prior to the union of states has proper authority to secede. It is not right (nor anywhere prohibited by the US Constitution) for the one aggrieved (or allegedly aggrieved) state to be at the mercy of the those that broke covenant. The sovereign parties who entered such a covenant or contract may leave if the terms have been violated. Who is to judge? Each party, unless there is a higher authority to whom to appeal. However, we have none such unless you think we should go to the Pope or to the UN. It's a simple principle of justice.
Why, then, is it so controversial? For the obvious reason that there are grave consequences for the break up of the Union, not to mention consequences to those with imperial ambition. However, the consequences to not breaking up are far greater. I say life, liberty, and property before security.
“(unless —I dare not think, less utter it — the UN)”
I got that far before reading the rest of your post (I will) and I have to stop and say:
GO WASH YOUR MIND OUT. :)
Since each state is sovereign (wherefore we each live under 2 constitutions), each state which in principle is prior to the union of states…
(Some States having been creations of the Union of States having had no prior existence as any sort of separate entity.)
“…has proper authority to secede.
Sometimes, but the other parties to a compact may be justified in requiring one attempting to break the compact to hold to the compact or suffer a penalty, provided these other parties have not broken the compact themselves.
It is not right (nor anywhere prohibited by the US Constitution)…
I don’t believe the US Constitution is relevant to this.
…for the one aggrieved (or allegedly aggrieved) state to be at the mercy of the those that broke covenant.
Your position kind of breaks down there. You went from if the contract has been violated, written above, to those that broke the covenant without any substantiation for the transition. Those who broke the covenant may be the ones who did so by leaving when the others are not at fault.
According to you, those who violated the contract cannot be judges of the case, so if those who violated the contract are the ones who broke the covenant by leaving when the others are not at fault, they cannot be judges of the case.
And of course, each side is likely to say the other side is the one in violation. Each side is likely to take the position that the rights they have under the compact/covenant/agreement are just. There will be a real or perceived conflict of rights. Absent a sufficiently organized society, and there isn’t one at this point in part because, as you say, there is no judge or higher authority to turn to, such conflicts are settled by consent or by superior force imposed by the party who is willing and able to bring superior force to bear.