I don't disagree, but I don't think the Founders envisioned a federal government that would be dependent on a single state (or a small group of states) for its survival. As I noted before, this appears to be one of the dangers of a massively bloated federal government. When the federal government takes on obligations that are beyond its means, this is one of the dangers that is run. I would suggest returning the federal government to its constitutional limits and many of the dangers of which you speak become considerably lessened--including, I suspect, any danger of secession.
Oh I don't doubt for a moment that the United States could continue without the seceding states. What I'm wondering is how you can accept that the Constitution can be used by some states to inflict harm on the interests and wellbeing of other states merely by leaving. The United States incurred financial and treaty obligations while the western states were a part. The western states have walked out. The debt hasn't gone away. The commitments to NATO and other allies hasn't gone away. But suddenly those states have to meet those obligations with about 25 percent less. And the seceding states have walked away from it all, seized untold billions of dollars in property without compensation, and are free and clear. How can the Constitution protect them, and allow them to literally screw the remaining states? How could the founding fathers ever sanction that? And other than war you seem to believe there is no recourse available.
When the federal government takes on obligations that are beyond its means, this is one of the dangers that is run.
When it took on those obligations the western states were a part of the country and reeped the benefits and well as incurred the responsibilities. If the Constitution says that states cannot repudiate obligations and harm the interests of other states while part of the Union how can you honestly believe that the Constitution allows states to do that merely by leaving?