The idea that Federal law supercedes state law is also a modern idea.
While Supreme Court decisions have extended its interpretation, the Supremecy clause always allowed federal law to trump state law.
The states created the Federal government not vice versa.
A committee of representatives from 12 states created the Federal government. Most of them supported a strong national government. The Constitution was the compromise reached not between conflicting goals of the Convention, but rather what was thought approvable by the general populus.
There was talk of secession by northern states in the early 1800's and both Madison and Jefferson were for small central government with limited power.
Talk of secession by northern states? What are you referring to?
Jefferson supported a small central government with limited power. Madison supported a very strong national government. Have you read his notes on the Constitutional Convention? He was part of the majority, not the minority. It is qutie humorous that he and Hamilton are viewed as the Fathers of Federalism. The Federalist papers are masterful propaganda, but hardly reflect the private views of Madison and Hamilton. Both men supported a strong national government and with far superior power over the states.
As for as the question, "Was Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer?" I would say that might be too strong. Lincoln though in modern terms would be a war criminal in that his actions were not to much differant than the Serbs in Kosovov through his actions through Sherman's rape of the South.
That's hardly fare. Sherman's march wasn't directly approved by Lincoln. Furthermore, even if it was, he was not committing ethnic cleansing. Give me a break. He destroyed a lot of property, burned down a lot of farms. Sure, some died in the process, but it was not genocide.
Almost forgotten was Lincoln's support of the Kansas Jayhawkers militia (or terrorists) raids into Missiouri where they killed civilians, stole and raped. The Missiori Guerilla's who reacted to the Jayhawkers by burning and destroying Lawrence Kansas were never supported by President Davis of the CSA.
Much worse things were supported by President Davis.
So I would say Lincoln was a trasher of the Constitution and in modern times would be a war criminal. Are we better off that the USA won? None of us can conclusively say yes or no to such a question.
Lincoln is no more a war criminal than any other victor from WWI to the present. In fact, he's far less of one. The US has supported terrorist groups in its day (especially during Reagan's term). The US has supported bombings of various nations that resulted in far more destruction than Sherman's March. Is all of this wrong? I think so, of course. Are they war criminals? I'd say some are. Have they been prosecuted under modern law? No.
I am no fan of Lincoln, do not get me wrong. I think all in all he was a rather subpar president. And he doesn't deserve his position as the "freer of the slaves" either. He was thrust into that position. He would have accepted slavery for peace. Kudos to him for eventually freeing the slaves, but he was hardly Frederick Douglas.