A more correct analogy would be states rebelling over a threat to the expansion of abortion rights or gay marriage rights.
What IS true is that Abraham Lincoln took the constitution, shredded it, tore it to pieces and threw it in the garbage.
In what way?
Non-seq, I do NOT have your encyclopedic knowledge of all things Civil War related, but I do hold more with DiLorenzo’s perspective, having read much of the supporting documentation. I do respect your position, but I do not share it, for the most part....and your finessing of my analogy was perfectly spot on.
My belief (worth exactly what you paid for it) is that the United States was “founded” as a treaty between equal and sovereign nation-states and the Constitution is that treaty. I believe (there goes that word again) that the states agreed to support that treaty (and NOT to be subject to a government greater than themselves—who would DO that?)...and I believe that the original intent was for the federal government to provide and maintain a unified armed forces and provide a uniform judicial system to arbitrate disputes between the states...I DO NOT believe that forcing one of those states to remain in the union if they chose to leave was their original intent, nor do I believe that many of Lincoln’s actions (i.e., suspension of habeas corpus, arresting the elected officials in Maryland, consolidation of federal power) was anything the founders had envisioned or would have approved.