Let me quote Chief Justice Chase on that question: "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
But that is neither here nor there, because I'm not arguing that the Union is perpetual or that states cannot leave the Union and neither was Chief Justice Chase. The question is the method which states leave. Can they just walk out, without discussion, regardless of how much harm their actions cause the remaining states? Or should withdrawl be negotiated by both sides to ensure that the interests of all are protected? I cannot believe that given the other restrictions the Constitution places on the states and the powers granted to Congress to literally create states in the first place that the Founders meant for secession to be unilateral.
I recognize that this isn't your argument, but it isn't an argument at all. It is a statement that lacks in support or analysis and cuts against what are (at least now) standard tools for textual analysis. It is--at the very least--a stretch to think that the phrase "more perfect" means perpetual, but it is even a greater stretch considering that most of the exact same folks who wrote the Articles (and therefore were perfectly aware how to state that a union was perpetual) would suddenly, a little more than a decade later, take to what amounts to a coded message to convey the same idea.
I know I'm restating my argument, but the Framers wrote that the Union was perpetual once: if they wanted to do so again, they could have. But they didn't.
I cannot believe that given the other restrictions the Constitution places on the states and the powers granted to Congress to literally create states in the first place that the Founders meant for secession to be unilateral.
Why not? Again, the fact that all the other restrictions are spelled out so carefully tends to cut in favor of thinking that the Framers intended for the states to have the right of secession. When the Framers were drafting Art. I, Sec. 10--which are state prohibitions--do you think they just forgot to include secession? When they were drafting Art. IV, do you think the subject slipped their mind again? That would seem like a strange result, especially considering that the United States just fought a war of secession against England, don't you think?
Again, the Framers were intelligent people; we have to assume that any omissions were deliberate. If we don't do this, we needn't bother with constitutional interpretation at all: it becomes meaningless because anything omitted is just assumed.