Basically that's what the Constitution means too according to Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (future first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant. Here is what they and the New York Ratification Convention voted for, one of the clearest statements of original intent [my bold emphasis below]:
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
... That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
Hamilton and Jay and the other New York Ratifiers also included among the rights they listed in their ratification document:
That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
As far as I know, none of the other states objected to the New York Ratification.
I’m always curious about the difference between “The people” and just “People,” and what it is that makes the state the fundamental molecule of sovereignty, able, according to some, to declare itself to be a different country now, with others morally blocked from forcible objection by invocation of natural law (however that’s defined), but which is denied to counties, towns, the Elks Club or individuals.
I think it was a common understanding of the time that if the Declaration of Independence granted states the right to secede from England, then the principles advocated therein also gave them the right to secede from any other political organization.
I recall reading editorials from Northern Newspapers for Southern states to go in peace with their blessings.
I believe that had the Southern States just refrained from provoking the Federals, secession would have been a fait accompli. There was little sentiment in the North to oppose them at the time.