The 10th amendment didn’t apply. The rebels knew it in theory and war proved it in practice. The south had no “right” other than through open rebellion, to leave the United States. A war decided that. A supreme court decision affirmed that.
The acts of war came long before Lincoln took steps to rein in the insurrectionists. They came not from the union but from the southern states in rebellion.
1. Let me first deal with the 10th Amendment.
The 10th's words are:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Can you tell us where the Constitution prohibits states from seceding? And where in the Constitution is the power to stop a state from seceding given to the central government or to the states that didn't secede?
Here's Jefferson Davis in his speech to the US Senate, January 10, 1861:
...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.
A majority of the 13 original states either had statements in their ratifications the allowed the resumption or reassuming of powers of governance (NY, VA, or VA) or made statements or proposed 10th Amendment like amendments:
South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."
So, apparently the words of the 10th Amendment (which is the law of the land) and the statements of the ratifiers don't mean much to you. Do you disagree with Madison's statement I posted above, that "the only authoritative intentions [of the Constitution] were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution."? Was Madison wrong?
2. Now I'll address this part of your post: The rebels knew it in theory and war proved it [rb note: by "it" here I gather you mean the 10th Amendment did not apply to secession] in practice. The south had no “right” other than through open rebellion, to leave the United States. A war decided that.
So, might makes right, hmmm? Doesn't matter that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession, the Northerners go to war to prevent the South from successfully seceding (psst, sotto voce -- because if they were successful it would ruin the North's economy}.
You are no doubt aware of de Tocqueville's statement:
However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
What the Constitution said and the ratifiers said the Constitution meant didn't matter to the Northern states who were trying to protect their economies. As some poster once said, "It was all about the Benjamins."
3. Now let's address your statement: A supreme court decision affirmed that.
You are talking about Texas v. White, whose decision was written by a former member of Lincoln's cabinet who had helped conduct the war against the seceded states and had dealt with the Texas bonds in question in this case when he was Secretary of the Treasury. He didn't recuse himself from the case. He had been nominated to the Court by Lincoln as its tenth member back when Republicans added a tenth justice to the court to protect Lincoln.
Texas v. White is currently the law of the land because it was a Supreme Court Decision. But IMO it is a flawed decision. Chase said the Union was perpetual under the Articles of Confederation and that perpetuity transferred to the Union under the Constitution. The Union under the Confederation was a different Union than the Union under the Confederation. As George Washington told the Senate in 1789:
"As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
The "Present Union" was not the same as the previous perpetual Union from which the states had withdrawn. The "Present Union" he was referring to was the Union under the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the Union formed under it was perpetual, only that the Constitution was a "more perfect Union." Was it more perfect that the Union under the Articles? Yes, it was, but it was a different Union, as Washington suggested.
For a discussion of perpetual union, I turn to a post by Nolu Chan who provided arguments for the secession of American states written by a British barrister [Link].
But on turning to the previous Articles of Confederation, we find in the title the words "perpetual union," and in the body, the express injunction -- "And the union shall be perpetual." On this point they clearly possessed greater force than that of the Constitution; yet, notwithstanding this, they were terminated at the end of a few years, and that, too, with liberty to any State to leave the Federation altogether. The Union has, therefore, proved, by its own act, that terms of this nature have no force of law, but simply indicate the intention and the desire of the parties at the time. We find, too, that the Federal Government entered into a close alliance with France, the terms of which strongly enjoined that it should last for ever; yet these terms were held to be no obstacle to annulling it, without the consent of the other party.
I am reminded of other perpetual agreements of the past. The Treaty of Paris (1783) also said there should be perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the American states and that navigation of the Mississippi River shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain. So much for "perpetual" and "forever". Then there was the "The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643" where participating colonies agreed to:
The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.
Gone with the Wind, if I might make a Southern reference.
Besides, the Union continued right along without the seceded states, and it waged a huge war effort to bring the seceded states back into the Union.
Chase's decision in Texas v. White has been characterized as an ipse dixit decision, i.e., asserted not proves or it is so because I say so. IIRC, some on these threads have characterized Chase's decision as made out of whole cloth, or, in other words, a ruling with no basis in fact. But it's the law.
rockrr, with respect, are you a proponent of a Living Constitution, or perhaps are you in any sense an originalist in the interpretation of the Constitution?