Read the 9th and tenth amendments. The STATES (the greater) created the federal government (the lesser) as their SERVANT, and delegated it certain ENUMERATED powers. The states did not create the federal government to be their lord and master, as fruitcakes attempt to claim.
4 Supreme Court Justices, 3 of them founders, stated in the same 1795 case that a state could "withdraw HERSELF" from the union. That was a UNANIMOUS holding. Future Chief Justice Marshall in the Virginia convention stated that Virginia could reclaim their delegated powers at will. New York, Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, and Virginia all stated that they could reclaim their delegated powers at will. Numerous state constitutions including Massachusetts stated that the state could alter or amend their government at will. In Federalist 9 Hamilton states the the proposed governemt was a 'the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy' and 'the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.'
Yep, CASE CLOSED.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was the perfection of the Union. That was the subject of the Convention where NOT ONE person spoke of any right of secession but MANY spoke of the need to create a more perfect UNION. And the spoke as AMERICANS.
"If we mean to found a national Govt., States must submit like individuals- the Govt. must be supreme- either the national, or State Govt. MUST BE SO. We should remember that language with which we began the Revolution- We then united in saying Virginia is no more, Massachusetts is no more, WE ARE ONE IN NAME, LET US BE ON IN TRUTH AND FACT. Unless this power is vested in the general Govt., the States will be employed by foreign Powers, against the Union. New States will soon be formed, the Inhabitants may be foreigners, and possess foreign affections- and unless the Genl. Govt. can check the State Laws, the nation may be involved in tumult and confusion." Wilson at the CC.
You continually distort the meaning of Nation and State. The United States is a Nation conposed of states (could have been called provinces, or departments). Those states cannot change their relation to the Union unilaterally.
In facts, the states of the RAT Rebellion did not even have within their own constitutions the right to secede from the Union. SHOW ME WHERE SECESSION WAS AUTHORIZED WITHIN ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. This demand you make wrt to the federal Constitution is even MORE applicable to the state constitutions.
As to the silly claims that the 10th amendment was a secret Self Destruction device for the Union we can see how Madison destroyed that pathetic sophistry even before the Constitution was finished. There was no true sovereignty in the States.
"We are vague in our language. We speak of the Sovereignty of the States. The States are NOT sovereign in the FULL EXTENT of the term. There is a gradation from a simple corporation for limited and specified objects, such as as incorporation of a number of Mechanicks up to a full sovereignty as possessed by independent Nations, whose Powers are not limited. The last only are truly sovereign. The States, WHO DO NOT HAVE SUCH FULL POWER, are deprived of such as by the Confedn. compose the natl. powers are [not] in the true meaning of the word Sovereigns. They are political associations, possessing certain powers- by these THEY MAY MAKE SOME, BUT NOT ALL, LAWS." J. Madison at the CC.
Hamilton in Federalist 9 starts with the WARNING of the dangers of disunion to the States. He then explains the theory of Montesquieu wrt republics, Confederate Republics and consolidated government. One of the quotes from M relevant to this question is "Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it....The state may be dissolved on one side, and not on the other, the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederate states preserve their sovereignty." Now TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT from which you have removed your quote it is clear that the meaning is entirely the opposite of what you want it to say. Hamilton is saying that the Confederation may be dissolved "from one side" by the Confederation itself BUT NOT "from the other" the individual state through unilateral action.
He then goes on to describe the relation between the states and the Union. "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constitutent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power." Hence states did not have full sovereign power but only "certain" powers none of which authorized the destruction of the Union. And they were "constituent parts" of the Union. Removal of such parts would destroy the Union just as removal of constituent parts of a House would collapse the house. Or removal of a constituent part of a cake, sugar, would leave no cake but something else.
Of course, for states like Ala., Miss., Fla., Louisiana, Tenn. and Ark. there was not even the pretense of any retention of an imaginary full sovereignty since they were the creations ENTIRELY of federal government action. And you cannot use no pretense to justify their actions.
As for imagined claims of reclaiming delegated authority in the documents your reference or the Court rulings they are based on equally deceptive or misunderstood cherry-picked quotes as you attempted here with Hamilton.