That logic doesn't work. It can be applied in reverse to invalidate your point:

Why would California have joined a union of states where their votes mean 1/4 of Wyoming's?

Sure, California's votes may mean less on a per capita basis, but if you're asserting that California is under-represented compared to Wyoming on a national basis, you're going to have to give some supporting evidence there. That's a pretty wild claim.

> supporting evidence

Read higher up in the thread:

> For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1]

To get the benefits that you would get from such a union (whether they see those as benefits is up to them):

* access to single market and currency

* federal loans/money

* territory protection from other countries military intervention

* freedom of movement (including study, work, living, etc) within all the other states of the union

If states want to do some things differently that's why there are state level laws. If those states don't find that they have the right amount of freedom at the state level and think those benefits above matter less than being able to outvote 3:1 a citizen in California when it comes to presidential election then, I guess, they are free to leave the union?

They aren’t free to leave the union though. The last time the states disagreed on this a rebellion was put down violently by the north.

States were added by acts of Congress. It logically follows the same can be done in reverse.

But it needs to be on agreed upon and mostly amicable terms, or the state(s) desiring to leave will be unable to get the necessary votes.

The southern states trying to take their slavery and go home knew this for decades before, so they didn't even bother.

Sure they are, in modern times. If there's an overwhelming majority that wants independence, a state will eventually secede. In a democratic or even a hybrid system, a country's politics, laws and constitution eventually change to adapt to overwhelming wishes of the majority.

Good points!

Because Arkansas or Nevada are only really viable economic entities when supported by the much more productive states like California or New York.

Why? Because silicon valley is there? By your standard, Michigan was the most powerful state in the 50s thanks to Detroit.