So anyone in the South should have remained in involuntary servitude to the Union? Note that "Federal" resources included resources and the lives of many Southerners. Are you denying that Federal acts were completed for the benefit of the member states at the time?
The Federal system was never meant as a means of locking in and enslaving states to a central government.
"So anyone in the South should have remained in involuntary servitude to the Union?"
Well, there were already plenty of people in "involuntary servitude" in the South. Not the theoretical type - but the type where you get lashed and your family gets ripped apart. But I digress. I would deny that the Louisianna Purchase and the Adams-Onis Treaty and similar land acquisitions were intended to only benefit the South. They were obviously intended to benefit the entire nation. The South, however, sought to deny the rest of the Country of the benefit of those transactions. When you enter into a joint venture and accept the benefits of the joint venture, you cannot unilateraly terminate the joint venture and confiscate the property of the joint venture. And yes, I believe that when the States of Florida, Arkansas and Lousianna were acquired from France and Spain by the federal government with federal money and then granted Statehood by the federal government, I do not think the residents of such areas had any expectation that they could secede. By the way, did blacks, women or poor/non-land owning whites all get to vote on whether to secede? Do you contend that a majority of the adult population of the South (including blacks and women)supported secession?