No.
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.
That was the subject of the Convention where NOT ONE person spoke of any right of secession.
No.
Mr. Gerry. Tho' he had assented to the Report in the Committee, he had very material objections to it. We were however in a peculiar situation. We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations. We ought not therefore to pursue the one or the other of these ideas too closely. If no compromise should take place what will be the consequence. A secession he foresaw would take place; for some gentlemen seem decided on it.
[Madison] Breach of compact in one article releases the whole.
Wilson: the question will be shall less than ¼ of the U. States withdraw themselves from the Union
Franklin: Our strength and our prosperity will depend on our unity; and the secession of even four of the smallest states, interspersed as they are, would, in my mind, paralyze and render useless, any plan which the majority could devise.
Wilson: If the minority of the people of America refuse to coalesce with the majority on just and proper principles, if a separation must take place, it could never happen on better grounds.
"If we mean to found a national Govt., States must submit like individuals- the Govt. must be supreme- either the national, or State Govt.
23 June 1787: 'It was moved and seconded to strike the words "national government" out of the 3d resolution; which passed in the affirmative. Too bad, so sad. The convention/founders REJECTED a "National" government.
SHOW ME WHERE SECESSION WAS AUTHORIZED WITHIN ANY STATE CONSTITUTION.
A straw man - the 10th reserves the right. But here's one from Massachusetts:
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people . . . therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
Show me where Secession was prohibited by the federal Constitution.
Those states cannot change their relation to the Union unilaterally.
The POST the clause PROHIBITING it.
"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.
They [Virginia and Maryland] were then sovereign states, possessing, unless thus restrained, all the rights and powers of independent nations over the territory within their respective limits, and could exercise any control and dominion over their navigable waters, and make any regulations necessary for the protection of their navigation, or to promote the commerce upon them of their respective states. Those articles expressly provided that each state composing the confederation retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which was not by them expressly delegated to the United States in congress assembled. The confederation was a league of friendship of the states with each other, so declared in the articles, and entered into 'for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.' But its articles did not form a constitution or ordinance of government, with power to enforce its provisions upon each other, or even a compact having any coherence or binding force other than that of a league of friendship, which its members only claimed them to constitute.and
Justice Field, Wharton v. Wise, 153 US 155, 166-167 (1894)
[Daniel Coxe] remained in the state of New-Jersey, not only after she [New Jersey] had declared herself a sovereign state, but after she had passed laws by which she pronounced him to be a member of, and in allegiance to the new government. The court entertains no doubt that after the 4th of October, 1776, he became a member of the new society, entitled to the protection of its government, and bound to that government by the ties of allegiance.This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.
Justice Cushing, McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 Cranch 209, 211-212 (1808)
I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority which originally resided either in Congress, or in any branch of the state governments, was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province in the first instance, and afterwards became citizens of each state; that this authority was conveyed by each body politic separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces, or states, jointly.
Justice Iredell, Penhallow et al v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 94 (1795)
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.
Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.Justice Patterson wrote in Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 82 (1795):
Ibid at 95.
But I am, notwithstanding, of opinion, that New Hampshire was bound, and Congress supreme, for the reasons already assigned, and that she continued to be bound, because she continued in the confederacy. As long as she continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.And again (3 Dall. 54, 95),
Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.Justice Blair in the same case (3 Dall. 54, 113), cited his own circuit court decision stating the same:
[I]f she [New Hampshire] had such a right [to revoke any authority she may have consented to give to Congress], there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.
Still trying the cherry-picked quotation route along with distorting the meanings of the quotes I see. "The object of our Convention is to INCREASE the power of the Genl. Govt. and that to at the expense of the State Govts." R.King at the CC.
Revising the Articles in no way means that the purpose was not to strengthen the Union. I note also you trying to ignore the clear statements made regarding the existence of the American people as a People. And you cannot refute Madison's clear analysis of the States lack of true sovereignty which meant they had NO POWER to retain sovereignty they never had.
Gerry was speaking of the result of no Compromise. It was pretty clear the Union was falling apart which was why the Convention was called.
Madison's "breach" comment was designed to refute the silly sophistry you repeatedly try- arguing that the Confederation could only be changed by unanimous approval of the States. He then goes on to show how various states had VIOLATED the Articles hence breaching the "Compact" but that those violations were not allowed to destroy the Union. Once again you take things out of context to distort the point.
You try and use the removal of the term National government to imply there was no Nation. Not only does Madison explains that the new Constitution intertwined the concepts National and federal to show that the new government was neither and both at the same time but the term did not mean a monolithic unified government. That fallacy was used by the original anti-federalists as well as you modern ones but was never an accurate description of ANY view. It was merely a rhetorical stalking horse. National govt., federal govt., General Govt. were all referring to the same thing and none meant a monolithic government without state and local independent components.
Massachusetts' Constitution in NO WAY references secession merely accurately describes the right of a people to change their governments. It was also ONLY referring to the right to change the state government but even there it did not have sufficient sovereignty to change it in any way it wished. Constitutional prohibitions FORCED the states to limit themselves to Republican government.
The fact that the Constitution is the Law of the Land and the SUPREME authority prohibits secession ipso facto.
The quote from Field explains the difference between the government under the Articles and that following but in no way claims there was any FULL sovereignty as described by Madison. Nor is there any indication that the 10th had any meaning other than the right of states to control their internal affairs.
Cushing's remark you also try and distort. He is clearly saying that state sovereignty over internal affairs is supreme, "municipal regulations", he termed them. Their laws were "obligatory upon the People of such state". This statement in no way claims a state has a right to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution.
While it is not clear exactly how you are twisting Iredell's quote to your purposes it is clear that he is referring to the fact that all governmental power State and Congressional come from the People. I am sure a full read of the opinion would show how you have distorted the meaning since you cannot help yourself.
As to the next the inability of a state to withdraw from the Union is not contested.
Patterson is not saying a state CAN withdraw from the Union but that it should have never ratified the new Constitution if it wished to be sovereign in all matters.
Your record for attempted deception stands unblemished.