The arguments of the anti-secessionists have two goals, create fear of violence in the minds of anyone who might contemplate secession and justify violence in the minds of those who would fight to keep their slaves. It does not get any more complicated than that. If you ever argue with an anti-secessionist you WILL be convinced of this.
Secession is a natural right of every human. There is no law created by men that supersedes natural rights and they cannot be "given up" by some "contract" nor taken away by some ancient war. Every single human has the right to break the bonds that tie them to others. When (not if) we decide to go we WILL be prepared for the violence of those who wish to keep their slaves. Count on it...
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
This statement by the founders of this union is as true today as it was then...
A big issue in Alaska's statehood was which property transferred to the "state" and which remained "federal".
I really do think that considerations of secession must necessarily reflect prior ownership. Land which belonged to the United States must continue to be part of the United States. land which belonged to some other country that freely associated with the United States is a different issue to be addressed separately.
Your original 13 colonies and their land claims give rise to different issues than the rights of states created subsequent to the Treaty of Paris ~ such states necessarily being erected in/on property OWNED by those states as a group, or independently.
Recall the history of the State of Franklin. The locals felt it useful to have their own state. They elected a legislature and governor. The federal government (and North Carolina, the original property owner) said "na, na, na, na" and rejected the whole scheme.
No, the locals didn't have the right to create a state. However, the Constitution provides a mechanism for creating states, and when that process was followed Tennessee was created in virtually the same place the former state of Franklin had been created.
The only real difference between Franklin and Tennessee was the question of WHO OWNED THE PLACE! Apparently private ownership of small lots didn't qualify folks to create states on their own.
Secession necessarily involves the process of creating a state ~ independent or otherwise.
Making it all much more complex we have the case of the State of Northern Virginia and the State of West Virginia.
Northern Virginia had a legislature and a wartime "governor". However, it was not considered a state ~ more like a territorial government for that part of Virginia along the Potomac that was not otherwise occupied by the Confederate Army. That is, it was a rump government erected for the sole purpose of collecting taxes and running criminal courts.
West Virginia was different. With the rest of the state of Virginia in rebellion, Congress acted to accept West Virginia as a state on its own. In effect, West Virginia is really Virginia, and modern Virginia is a new creation made AFTER the Civil War, and then separately admitted ~ presumably with the permission of the state of West Virginia.
Other strange deals include the Union making good on the salaries of Postmasters in Southern states ~ ........ ~