'Narrow intepretation' might be a polite way of describing it. But the only way I can see how you might arrive at that interpretation is by ignoring vast amounts of the Constitution you claim to have an uncanny understanding of. You claim that the central government is in no way superior to the states. Yet it is the Congress that determines if a state will be admitted in the first place. The central government tells the states what form of government they will have. The central government that tells the states who they may deal with and how they may or may not conduct their affairs outside their own borders and in their dealings with the other states. You cringe and cry 'treason' at the idea of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a state law and ignore the fact that same Constitution that defines 'treason' differently from you also makes it clear that it is the U.S. Constitution and the laws and treaties made under it that is the supreme law of the land, overriding state and local constitutions and laws when lose laws conflict with it. And do you honestly expect us to believe that the U.S. Army is unconstitutional?
The Constitution does not limit the central government to explicit powers only, the concept of implied powers has been accepted since the first Supreme Court. The idea of the states being sovereign is true to a point, they are sovereign within their own borders but powerless when their actions impact the interest of the other states or outside the borders of the United States. That is the concept that the founders had. A nation that speaks with one voice, not 50. And a nation that looks out for the interests of all the states, not one. We are one nation, not a loose conglomeration of 50.
Here's some REAL understanding of Lincoln:
Lincoln as anti-secession hero
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/China/GC14Ad04.html