Agree in part -What's especially funny about Texas is that Chase couldn't find any language in the Constituion which declared and legally required the union to be perpetual, or that prohibited secession.So what did Chase do? Well, he did what any dishonest and corrupt political hack would do; he pilfered language from the defunct AoC in order to "prove" that the union under the Constitution was "perpetual". The decision was a sham and a farce.
There is nothing in the Constitution to declare secession illegal.
Disagree in part -
It's not the Articles per se that are defunct so much as the "perpetual...United States in Congress assembled" are defunct So much for perpetuity. It ended, exactly when is hard to say, but somewhere around 1787 during the time that the States ratified their membership in another union.
However, the preceding documents are very relevant to understanding why no text denying or disparaging a right for a state to exit appears in the Constitution.
The Declaration states that people are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable (key word) right to "alter...abolish...and institute new government...to effect...Safety and [pursuit of] Happiness." The document is not just a declaration of secession and the causes which impel it, it is also a declaration of (as it were) divine right to alter, abolish and change government, as States, like in exiting or seceding a union. So naturally, the AoC is not going to deny or disparage (so to speak) the very god-given right to exit in their organic statute at the very moment they are exercising that right (1776-1781).
The past is significant, because the process repeats ca 1787. The states exit the (perpetual) United States in Congress, seceding (as it were). And while doing so, with each State individually using its (divine) right described by Madison in Federalist 43 as "superseding" the sovereignty of the "union" without its "consent," and he cites the same two goals cited in the Declaration of Independence, ie, "safety" and [pursuit of] "happiness" as all the justification they need So, naturally (again), they are not going to deny or disparage the god-given right to exit in their organic statute, at the very moment (1787-1790) they are exercising this right by leaving one union and joining another.
Just consider the context and ask yourself why would any rational person expect to find language denying or disparaging the right of a state to alter, abolish and institute new government in the AoC or Const? Didn't they just declare such right is inalienable and pledge the lives fortunes and sacred honor on that self evident truth?
So, of course, there is not going to be any language in the Constitution to deny or disparage the right of a State to pursue happiness by altering its government - for some of them - a third time.
As to Texas v White, where did Chase get "indissoluble?" He made it up (?). What Founder or Framer or relevant document used that word? Also, the southern states ca 1860 did not dissolve the union or claim to being so. They only, in effect, dissolved their relationship with it, as the ordinances state - by merely repealing their own unilateral enactments.