(We've been through similar discussions before, haven't we? ;>)
The Supremacy clause clearly indicates to me that no state can by its own act void federal laws or exempt itself from their applicability.
It appears that you have been unable to locate a specific constitutional clause or federal law which prohibits secession. Rather, you seem to be are referring to "federal laws" in general, and suggesting that any action which interferes with their application is unconstitutional. Is that right?
A few simple questions: how would you apply that standard to the period when the new Constitution was being ratified? Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, for example, states that “The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of... establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the [thirteen] United States.” Quite obviously, allowing only nine States to establish a new “Constitution between” themselves would interfere with “the sole and exclusive right and power of... establishing or regulating post offices throughout all the [thirteen] United States.” Was ratification of the Constitution therefore a violation of the Articles of Confederation? If so, then why is the Constitution valid? If not, then why could the Southern States not secede under similar circumstances?
It's not common practice for agreements to contain an implied right to break with the agreement whenever one sees fit. Something that important would have been explicitly written into the agreement, not simply assumed to be implicit in it.
You’re suggestion cuts both ways. Previous American constitutional compacts that were intended to be “perpetual” clearly said so, in plain English, in writing. The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England (1643) stated that:
”...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... this perpetual Confederation, and the several articles and agreements thereof being read and seriously considered, both by the General Court for the Massachusetts, and by the Commissioners for Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, were fully allowed and confirmed by three of the forenamed Confederates, namely, the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven...”
If I remember correctly, the self-proclaimed “perpetual” United Colonies of New England had ceased to exist as a political entity by 1700. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, although mentioning (in plain English, and in writing ;>) their perpetual nature three times as often as the compact between the United Colonies, lasted only a fraction as long. Other ‘plans of union,’ on the other hand, including those of William Penn (1697) and Benjamin Franklin (1754), which were apparently not intended to be “perpetual,” made no use of the word. There was nothing at all preventing the Framers from inserting the word “perpetual” in the Constitution – if they had intended that the new union be “perpetual” (with membership maintained by force of arms), they simply could have said so.
The very fact that such argument goes on and on with no sign of abatement is an indication that more caution was required in 1860 than the secessionists displayed.
Two points; first the less important, and then the more critical. It would have required two parties with an interest in “more caution... in 1860” to have prevented bloodshed. Mr. Lincoln consulted his cabinet before sending naval vessels to Fort Sumter, and (with only a single exception) the members of his cabinet advised him not to do so. That is simple, documented, historical fact. (I can name names, and cabinet positions, if you like. ;>) Allow me to suggest (in the words of my good friend capitan_refugio) that Mr. Lincoln “chose poorly.”
The more critical issue (IMHO) is with us today. We now possess a de facto national, rather than federal, government: it is quite simply a ‘winner take all’ political system based in Washington, DC. We face issues today that are just as onerous as those that faced the Americans from 1790 to 1860. And some of those issues (abortion, gun control, etc.) have real potential to lead to bloodshed – but only in a ‘winner take all’ system. In a ‘States rights’ system, on the other hand, those same issues are largely defused: if you don’t like New York’s pro-baby-killing laws, for example, you can move to Utah. If you don’t like California’s gun control laws, you can move to New Mexico. Interestingly enough, the Constitution was actually written for a ‘States rights’ system, and if we simply apply it as it was intended to be applied, I believe we will reduce the likelihood of Americans once again killing Americans.
My two cents worth...
;>)
Assume for a minute that the Constitution did dissolve the union as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. I don't know that it did, but if so, the Constitutional Convention (called, I believe, by the Continental Congress) would have constituted an approval of the whole union of a possible change in the status of the union.
Had a convention been called or amendment passed to dissolve the union in 1860, there would have been fewer constitutional problems or conflicts over such a dissolution. Such a use of constitutional channels might also have helped to cool down the political climate. That is the way constitutional governments are expected to behave, with due deliberation and concern with process, consequences, and conciliation. Once the country divided into armed camps, though, such measures were impossible.
As for Sumter, the story of Toombs's warning to Davis not to fire on the fort lest it unite Northerners against the Confederacy is well known. The degree to which Davis was trying to head off South Carolina hotheads, and the degree to which he wanted war to pull the Upper South into the Confederacy have both been topics of much discussion. Davis ran the clear risk of war in making a bet that could have increased the size and power of his little regime. So I don't think you can put all the blame on one side.
Buchanan also has to bear much of the blame. His view that states couldn't secede and the union had no right to prevent them from doing so was inherently unstable, more a refusal to decide than a decision. Each side seized on the part of the formulation that favored their own interest, and war came. I don't know what Buck could have done differently, but it looks like his two-headed argument only strengthened each side in its resolve to fight.
I would agree with you that the federal system has been much imperiled in recent decades. But I'd argue, first, that rather than a defense of federalism, the rebellion looks like a foolish destruction of older concepts of the union. "The Old Republic" died not when Lincoln took office, but with secession and the formation of the Confederacy. Whatever followed would be different from what had come before. Having two armed camps facing each other would have radically changed American history. So would allowing states the right to pick and choose which laws they would obey. Was it worthwhile destroying what we had before the war?
Secondly, the Civil War did point up serious problems with federalism. A union that was silent or indifferent about something as important as slavery was bound to face trouble. This indicates an ongoing problem with federalism of any sort that has to be grappled with by any federated system. It's not clear that any federation can entirely avoid or permanently suppress such conflicts. The old Republic was torn apart by them, not so much by abolitionist passion as by slaveholders' fear and insecurity. So there are no easy answers.
Third, there's some truth in the view that the 14th amendment allowed the federal government -- especially the courts -- to enforce uniform standards on the states, though the widespread use of the Amendment to do so would only happen generations after the Civil War. But the vision of Americans moving from state to state in search of more freedom was given a greater reality by the 14th Amendment. For a large part of the population, such movement wasn't possible in antebellum America.
Much of our loss of freedom has to do with the loss of the frontier and with the introduction of the income tax. I'll grant that the 14th Amendment allowed the courts greater power over both the powers of the states and the rights of individuals, but the effect of the Reconstruction amendments certainly wasn't one-sidedly against freedom. On the contrary, whatever bad effects they they might have had later on, they were also a contribution to greater liberty.