You just don't get it. Nobody gave the federal govt. supremecy before Lincoln. He did it.
When a member of a voluntary union resigns then they don't belong to the union and ejecting foreign troops off your property
is not waging war against the govt. of the United States.
Voluntary union, think voluntary union.
If I quit paying NRA dues, then I am not doing vandalism to the rear window of my truck by scraping off the decal.
Understand?
No, I understand the argument you've put forth. You're wrong, and your argument neglects the problems from the articles of confederation and the nullification crisis.
Basically, you're saying that States had complete sovereignty within their borders to do anything, including resign from the United States and attack and sieze Federal property.
Go back to the articles of confederation -- your position would have been pretty close to correct then. The central government was weak, couldn't tax, and barely survived the war for independence. It was out of disgust with the governmental system that the constitutional convention of 1787 was held, which resulted in the Constitution.
Some of the flaws were remedied by explicitly granting federal authority. Although weaker than our conception of it today, the Federal government then was still reasonably strong. The idea was to have a balance of power, with different authority between federal and state in their respective spheres of interest.
What you argued came up about 30 years before the Civil War, when South Carolina started vetoing federal tarriffs.
This was completely illegal. Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, came out of retirement to debunk their justifications, which were similar to your argument. Clay helped shepherd through Congress a compromise bill which essentially put a lid on the matter, and Jackson was content to let bygones be bygones.
Your voluntary association argument is likewise baseless. States voluntarily joined with ratification, yes. States relinquished some of their authority in so doing. They gave the Federal government supremacy. Conceptually you're mistaken if you read the preamble, particularly the
bit about 'form a more perfect union,' which means that there was already a union. The states were already something more than just some random geographic coincidence. Legally, secession was a concrete violation of Article 4, section 3. I'd argue that it denied certain persons their protections under section 2, first clause, and also that in denying the validity of all American law it was repugnant to section 1. This was all a moot point when Lincoln, acting under Art 4 sec 4, as Commander in Chief and chief magistrate acted after the attack on Sumpter to protect the rest of the country.
Attacking a fort and trying to kill American soldiers is more significant than scraping a decal off your window. It's insurrection and treason, per the Constitution, which merits a military response.
