Why would you suggest that the ordinances of secession were not 'valid?' And by 'valid,' do you mean constitutional, or do you have some other criterion (or criteria, many of which we've seen you mention, in passing, on previous occasions) that you are applying with regard to this post?
;>)
By not valid I mean not Constitutional. James Madison wrote that a rightful secession requires the consent of the other states as well as those leaving. As he noted, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains. An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, on nowhere less so than where it is not most contended for."
To accept the idea that a state can unilaterally secede from the Union is to believe that it has more rights under the Constitution than the other states.