This is the theory that treats the Federal Government like some sort of catering company that the states chip in and hire each Friday night for the sock hop. One week, South Carolina calls in and says, "Can't make it this week. Or next week. Or anytime soon. Need to start staying home with the new wife."
Now you know why South Carolina decided not to take this theory to the Supreme Court.
[You]This is the theory that treats the Federal Government like some sort of catering ....
No, it isn't. People on your side of the argument keep erecting this straw man, that the South treated the Union casually. They didn't. The Carolinas didn't go out over Nullification, the Tariff of Abominations, and the Force Act. Instead they compromised -- in 1820, in 1830, and in 1850. Three generations of compromises from 1820 down to the election of Lincoln does not a casual dissolution of the Union make.
To review the common arguments that the Unionist side has asserted repeatedly but failed to establish by fallacies distraction, appeals to force, appeals ad populum, appeals to authority, and argument ad hominem, I list a few of them below:
Unionist Straw Man No. 1: The Confederacy's secession was "secession at will", which the Founders condemned. [Appeal to authority]
Unionist Straw Man No. 2: It was all about slavery -- and no decent person would support slavery. [Argument ad hominem and ad populum]
Unionist Straw Man No. 3: The States had no Sovereignty, by themselves or in their People. [Slothful induction, no support]
These arguments having been advanced unsuccessfully by the Unionist side repeatedly, and just as often confuted by the Constitutionalist side, let's agree not to discuss them any more, since at this point we are just wasting air.
You may resign the argument with honor, at your leisure.