I'm not talking about money. They ratified and assented to a Constitution to which they are bound.
We're heading down the Whiskeypapa path whereby an instrument of the people's will - the Constitution - once ratified, takes precedent over that very thing that created it. The argument is troubling, to say the least.
To demand approval from the whole of the body politic prior to secession, one would have to believe that the will of the people meant the will of the people of respective states for the purpose of ratification and amendment, but something entirely different for the purpose of secession.
Nowhere have I incurred two disparate definitions.