Which makes about as much sense, today, as imposing Shar'ia law. The Supreme Court only offered the construct of the Union as being "perpetual", obviously an impossible duty to be imposed upon future generations (even Rome finally fell), and formed into "a more perfect Union" by the words of the Constitution. Times change, people change. Words written in one context cannot always be transferred to another context.
This is only an early example of "judicial activism", reinterpreting the original intent to conform with the local current passions of the times. Since the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation, the standard of "in perpetuity" (which has been struck down again and again in law at various levels) has become moot.
What is glaringly obvious, is that Union has become much LESS perfect that its former state, with the Federal government usurping by increasing degrees the amount of power exerted in the daily life of its citizens. The national legislature has become insensitive to the demands of the voters and taxpayers, chosing to direct their attention to meddling in the marketplace, to the point of nearly stopping ALL commerce, by both excessive taxation and extremely restrictive regulation.
The Supreme Court of the time was blowing smoke, so to speak. And as such, are NOT beyond criticism today.
Yes it was. Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
____________________________________________________________
The problem with Non Sequitor’s response above is that it wasn’t litigated until 3 years AFTER the Civil War.