Please see my Post #90 - any 'reinterpretation' generally occurs on the side of the 'Union-at-all-costs' types...
;>)
If anyone who considers the secession of the Southern States to have been been unconstitutional wants to be historically (and legally) accurate, maybe they should read the United States Constitution (as it then existed) instead...
Why not just read the Constitution as it is and was. There is no right to secession in it. Within the sphere of federal powers, federal laws are supreme.
Some will argue that a "right to secede" is reserved by the states under the 10th Amendment. That's stupid. You can't claim to have implicitly reserved a right under the Consitution to exempt yourself from the working of the Constitution.
What's annoying here is how you guys cobble together your theory and then present it as the real or original interpretation. The Founders and most 19th century Americans didn't accept the theory of unilateral secession. Yours isn't not the original or authoritative interpretation of the Consitution.
The Tenth Amendment addresses only powers that are not expressly reserved to the federal government.
Supremacy of jurisdiction is a power that is explicitly and clearly reserved to the federal government.
Secession, a fancy term for states laying claim to supremacy of jurisdiction, is obviously unconstitutional.