[Non-Sequitur]

Chase said the same. But you obviously do not share Chases' view that perpetual = permanent. According to Chase a more 'perfect union' made something [non-]permanent more permanent, yet that previous perpetual union only lasted 9 years. Maybe if the framers had changed "more perfect" to "new and improved" Chase would have understood it.

Chase said that was permanent and there was no reconsideration or revocation once admitted, except through revolution or through consent of the States. So even he recognized that secession could be allowed under the right circumstances.

[4CJ]

Chase said that was permanent and there was no reconsideration or revocation once admitted, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Two separate issues - the permanence of the union upon ratification and the methodology of disunion.

Chase wrote, 'What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. ... When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.

Via amendment the entire union could be dissolved. That crushes Chases' "indissoluble" and "indestructible" characteristics. We have already proven that "perpetual" simply means without a stated end, not "permanent". Regarding an "indestructible union" composed of indestructible States, Article IV§3 destroys that absurd holding. Lastly, nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from leaving, it actually guarantees them that right. The states were sovereign under the Articles, and to paraphrase Chase, 'What can be more sovereign, than a state made more perfect?'