You claimed the later states didn't have the right to secede because they were created by Congress. If the original 13 states have the right to secede (which they certainly did under the Tenth Amendment, your disagreement notwithstanding), then the Tenth Amendment also applies to the later states.
Are you arguing that the Tenth Amendment doesn't apply to later states because they were creatures of the Federal Government and didn't have any powers to retain? Novel theory that. What else did the original states lose under your implication theory? (As you can tell, I don't buy your theory.)
Being able to peaceably secede from a government that you no longer wish to be associated with is a benefit of the Tenth Amendment. Some would probably even say that being free from having to associate with Yankees is a benefit in itself, present company excluded. However, in the future, we'll probably be able to avoid Yankees only by going to restaurants that serve only grits. Yum.
Incorrect. Unlike many around here I have never said that states did not have the right to secede, and I would ask you to point out where you think I did. What I have always said, and have never wavered from, is that states do not have the right to secede unilaterally. Such a power is denied them by the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment, and that is where the southern rebellion fell afoul of the law. The Constitution applies to all states, not just the seceding ones, and protects the rights and interests of all states, not just the seceding ones. And this fact was recognized by the Supreme Court in their Texas v White decision.
The fact that southern supporters believe that the Constitution only applies to states wanting to leave is something I can never understand.