You mean you really don't know what Texas v. White says? After all this time?
Texas v. White (74 U.S. 227-243)
Chief Justice Chase, writing for the court in its 1869 decision, said:
. . . 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? . . .
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
So you were basically clueless --- you walked into a door when you suggested that the Preamble is not important, when the Chief Justice refers directly to it.
Walt