Well I certainly thought that the prelude building to war, and it's aftermath to qualify, and I do think that since opposing federal domination of the states seems to be THE key issue today's confederate apologists say they were fighting against in 1861, I thought this qualified. If confederate sympathizers say they were fighting for the power of the states over the federal government to set their own ways and policies and laws, I think it not out of line to point out that when it suits them they themselves choose federal power to push their agenda on states that do not want it. Did Virginia and South Carolina and the former confederate states, and the still living former confederates, recognize the rights, or call for the rights, of states like Rhode Island that opposed the imposition of federal laws their state opposed?

Since these confederates themselves sought federal solutions to problems ( both before and after the war)and willingly participated in forcing other states to accept laws they opposed, I think it ok to point out that confederate support of "states rights" is highly selective, not based on a firm principle, but cherry picked to the underlying issue, and therefore a bit of a myth.

But, as it is the will of the forum, I will say no more and simply end with this : the invasion of a state against another began long before the Civil War. It began with Washington and started from Virginia, when federal troops, including those from the Southern states of the Carolinas and Virginia, were called out by Washington himself and invaded the northern state of Pennsylvania to enforce federal laws.

Washington and Viginia saw clearly that there is no point to law, any law, or a constitution, any constitution, or a government, any government, if it's laws goes unenforced, useless, and without power.