“Um, that was a different Union with a different founding document.”
Again, I always thought they were the same states. Which ones were different?
“...some states assumed a “right of might” not mentioned in the Constitution...”
Yep. It’s outside the Constitution. The Social Compact by which the States transitioned from a State of Nature to a State of Society (or from one State of Society to another State of Society) with each other is outside the Constitution. So, if one party violates a pact, deal, contract, agreement with another party, may not the other party believe it is due some satisfaction? And if the parties do not share a common State of Society may not the modes of the State of Nature (which may involve force) apply?
As to the Hamilton quote:
“A complying State at war with a non-complying State;”. Well, yes. One party trying to hold another to an agreement.
“Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them...”
Would not Congress be acting on behalf of the other States, especially at a time when the State Legislatures appointed the Senators?
“...would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves?”
Yes, the issue would be between States, with Congress acting as agent for one group of States.
I believe the war from 1861-1865 was a War Between The States and that Lincoln and the rest of the Federal Government would have been nothing without the Northern States.
“I believe the war from 1861-1865 was a War Between The States and that Lincoln and the rest of the Federal Government would have been nothing without the Northern States.”
May I quote you on that?
Same states; different agreements creating central governments and setting up different rules for two different Unions. As Washington basically said in 1789, North Carolina. which was a member of the Union set up by the Articles, was not a member of the Union set up by the Constitution.
I've owned four houses in my life all at different time periods. Different houses, different mortgages, different HOA rules, different cities (some with zoning, some without zoning). Same person (me) but different legal purchase agreements. I don't claim that my first house is the same as my present house and that the legal document I signed to purchase my first house still applies to my present situation.
"A complying State at war with a non-complying State;". Well, yes. One party trying to hold another to an agreement.
Speaking of trying to hold another to an agreement, the Constitution called for the return of fugitive slaves from Northern States. That was a key agreement/compromise by the Constitutional Convention that helped get the Constitution ratified in all states. Northern states had agreed to the part of the Constitution that said (from Article IV, Section 2):
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The South had fought through the courts and Congress for almost twenty years to get more fugitive slaves returned from Northern states. Many Northern states responded by passing personal liberty laws, a number of which were unconstitutional. Once Southern states started seceding, some of the Northern states began frantically revising their personal liberty laws. However, it was basically too late. Northern states should have listed to Daniel Webster of Massachusetts in 1851:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
The last fugitive slave returned from Massachusetts was in 1854 despite large numbers of fugitive slaves living in parts of Massachusetts (sanctuary cities, anyone?). One of the guards of that 1854 slave was killed by a Massachusetts mob trying to prevent his return.
Here is what the Michigan legislature and the Detroit Free Press said about Michigan's personal liberty law. From the March 2, 1861, issue of the State Gazette of Austin, Texas quoting an article from the Detroit Free Press [italics theirs, paragraph breaks and emphasis mine]:
Absurd and Impudent Action by the Michigan Legislature
We can conceive of nothing more absurd than the passage by either house of the Legislature, at Lansing, of the resolutions which are reported to have passed concerning national affairs, while the personal liberty bill still stands. The personal liberty law -- so the legislature of 1859 construed it, and such is the only construction which it will bear -- "was designed to and if faithfully executed will prevent the delivering up of fugitive slaves." It is therefore plain, palpable, unadulterated nullification of the fugitive slave law.
Michigan, for six years past, has stood in the attitude of open and avowed hostility to the authority of the Constitution of the United States. Until she has changed this attitude -- until she has hauled down the flag of rebellion -- until she is fully within the line of her constitutional duty -- how absurd is it, how impudent is it, in her to pass resolutions that the Constitution of the United States, and all laws in pursuance thereof, "are the supreme law of the land" -- that "there is no method for a State, or the citizens of a State, to escape the obligations imposed by the Constitution except by and through an amendment of that instrument" -- that "Michigan is now, as she has always been, entirely loyal to the Constitution;"
... We know of nothing better calculated to stimulate secession than this action, especially as it is the action of a State whose professions of loyalty to the Constitution are a lie. -- Detroit Free Press