That is the sort of half-assed, half-baked argument that neo-confederates must resort to. The historical record in no way supports it. The people are the sovereigns of the United States, and the "south" had no right to act unilaterally.
That was made clear very early in the national life. Justice James Wilson wrote in Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793:
"Who were these people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected by articles of confederation. To the purposes of public strength and felicity the confederacy was totally inadequate. A requistion on the several states terminated its legislative authority; executive or judicial authority, it had none.
In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, wil be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation."
Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819, writing the majority opinion in McCullough v. Virginia
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
It just sort of seems, well, cheesy, to wait decades and then say you don't agree. And it is cheesy and dishonorable to post, in malevolence something that one knows the record simply will not support.
Now, I know you have seen these court cases before. I do not post them for your benefit. But they can only serve to embarrass you, and this nonsensical neo-confederate rant.
Walt