should jeff davis have been hanged?

[A18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

[A18]

If I understand you correctly, the argument runs like this: The Constitution explicitly declares contrary provisions of state law to be void. But this is futile if a form of state law (i.e., the will of a state convention) can displace that very same Constitution. The more natural reading of the Supremacy Clause, then, is that it bars secession.

Put another way, "once American soil, always American soil." I don't buy it. It would not be in and of itself absurd to subordinate states to the federal government while they are part of the union, while at the same time leaving them free to leave. Take the Union or leave it, this policy would say: take all the benefits and burdens of membership, or take none of them--but take nothing else.

The Constitution's text, moreover, confirms that its application to a particular place may cease. Congress can unquestionably dispose of acquired territory; see Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2: "[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of ... Territory ... belonging to the United States."

Let me be clear that I have zero doubt that secession is unconstitutional. But I base that on the nature of the instrument and the understanding of the ratifiers, rather than on explicit text.

[A18]

Rhode Island, Virginia, and New York ratified the Constitution under the pretext that they could withdraw from it at any time.

Please provide some citations to, and/or quotations of, primary source materials.