It was a principle of the common law (dating back to the Wars of the Roses) that a citizen could not be punished for obeying the government that was in control. I ran across that looking at some appeals court cases from the period right after the American Civil War (or whatever it should be called).
The 10th amendment could be construed as meaning that the states had a right to secede. I suspect that most of the men who voted in the state ratifying conventions assumed that secession was a potential option. After all, they were voting to secede from an existing arrangement, the Articles of Confederation.
The Medieval concept was fealty, one swore allegiance to ones overlord. The vast difference between the English experience and the French experience being in England one swore to ones overlord that one would fight all except the king-(William I required this). The French experience was one swore to fight for ones lord against ALL-which included the king. The reason average Brit was not punished being pardon not lack of guilt.
Common sense is against the idea that the founders would form a government from which one could leave anytime one became dissatisfied. Secondly, your position assumes the states were the source of the Constitution. That is not true.
Our national government is NOT a compact, a treaty between sovereign states, a contract or any civil agreement. The Founders started a government not a league./p>