I don't want to get drawn into another endless argument… I simply refer to the supremacy clause.
From the link you provided:
”It has long been established that ‘a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute’"
There is no need for an “endless argument” – simply name the “valid federal statute” that prohibits State secession. There is absolutely no “conflict” unless some “valid federal statute” declares secession to be unlawful.
If a state cannot simply void a federal law or constitutional provision on its own, it's highly unlikely that it could simply throw off the whole Constitution.
First, you are ‘comparing apples and oranges.’ To “void a federal law or constitutional provision,” that “federal law or constitutional provision” must in fact exist. And you have yet to cite a “federal law or constitutional provision” that prohibits secession. Why? Because no such restriction exists (except, perhaps, in some vague ‘unwritten law’ apparently familiar only to unionists).
Second, you seem to be suggesting that, because the federal government was delegated certain enumerated powers, it was therefore also granted any other power that might somehow relate. Mr. Madison addressed that issue repeatedly (The Federalist No. 45, i>The Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800, Letter to Spencer Roane, 1819, etc.), as did Mr. Jefferson (The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Declaration of 1825, etc.). They suggested that federal powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; and that a ‘broad & pliant’ interpretation of federal powers (such as that favored by most unionists) was never intended, and was completely unjustified. Mr. Madison observed that if such broad powers had in fact been proposed for the new federal government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
“A union that was silent or indifferent about something as important as slavery was bound to face trouble;” “the 14th amendment allowed the federal government -- especially the courts -- to enforce uniform standards on the states;” “Much of our loss of freedom has to do with the loss of the frontier and with the introduction of the income tax.”
You raise a number of interesting points. However, I would suggest that many problems were caused by the imposition of a national government on a constitutional foundation intended for a federation of States. And finally, if the specific written terms of the Constitution conflict with your concept of government, it is more likely that your concept of government is unconstitutional, than that the Constitution does not actually mean what it clearly says.
;>)
That at least is my reading. I don't think a state can pull a right to secede out out of the air or the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment any more than one can pull a right to scoot away from mortgages, debts or contractual obligations of one's back pocket.
People will disagree about this. It's more a matter of readings and interpretations than of black ink on white paper. That's why it came down to war. A people can overthrow a tyrant, and arguably a country would be within its rights to cast off an ruinous treaty imposed on it. But the condition of the slave states in 1860 was very different from these cases. Moderation, prudence, good sense and a committment to processes that involved all parties were required, not emotionalism and a violent break with the Constitution.
The evidence I've seen is that the Framers of the Constitution wanted something more than a mere league of independent states, and that the rise of a national interest wasn't unwanted or unexpected. There was much freedom for the states to run their own affairs. The federal government was quite small, but nationhood was a reality and one cherished by those who had established it. They certainly didn't picture how their child would grow, but they didn't want to throttle it in the cradle. Of course there were Anti-Federalists who opposed such developments and complicated the picture.
Confederates and Unionists seem to be looking through different ends of the telescope. Confederatists seem to view the union or nation in light of today's giant federal bureaucracies. Unionists understand the sentiments of nationhood and their importance to Americans, and consider the dangers of disunity. These were very important concerns in the 19th century, though they might seem trivial now. It's because the union held that the idea of union has little appeal for us. If we were divided into many smaller countries perhaps hostile to each other, we'd have more of a feeling for the consequences of union and disunion. I don't underestimate the dangers and bad effects of bloated goverment, but the other side of the argument tends to get ignored.