LOL! Like it or not, that's exactly what it was. Brilliantly written by extraordinary men, but a contract nonetheless.
-------------
But even if it were a mere contract then secession was even less defensible since it would amount to a unilateral abrogation of that "contract."
The entire purpose of a contract is to state the terms of the contract IN the contract its self.
It's called "full disclosure".
If you try to add to or subtract anything to a contract that isn't expressly there after it's been agreed to and signed, it's a breach of contract.
Please show me the part of the Constitution that expressly forbids a state to secede.
-------------
So either way the Slavers were in the wrong.
Amazing how the moral issue of slavery is immediately injected into a LEGAL discussion when the opposition lacks any rational or Constitutional argument.
If it's a contract, it's the funniest looking contract I have ever seen. The Constitution is not a contract. It is an incorporation document that spells out the duties, structure and workings of the national government including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.
If you see it as a contract, you can only then be of the anti-Federalist (anti-Constitution) camp since the constitution puts itself above state constitutions which is the reason the anti-Federalists opposed adoption.
Andrew Jackson showed that secession was unconstitutional as clearly as any.
There is nothing in the Constitution claiming it to be a contract. This is just another misunderstanding of the document concocted to defend such indefensible acts as destruction of the Union.
As I said even IF it were a contract secession would be illegal. Courts are were contact disputes are settled not insurrection.
Insurrection disguised as "secession" is still insurrection and the Founders placed the ability to respond to insurrection firmly in the document.
One of your problems is trying to pretend that insurrection was something else then demanding proof that that something else was forbidden. Sneaky but only with the stupid would it work.
Slavery was the ONLY reason the RAT lead insurrection occurred so one must look at the context of the legal "argument" which wasn't an argument either just insurrection.