Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. One time or another, some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel." In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat. Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).
Note: The United States existed as a Perpetual Union by mutual agreement of the States prior to the Constituion. It was not established by the Constitution and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence. The Federal Gorvenment is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States. If the States convened a Constitutional Convention today, they could amend the Constitution to abolish the Federal Government and establish a Constitutional Monarchy as the governing mechanism, and the United States would still exist. (The thought of a Constitutional Convention held today is really scary considering the quality of the potential participants.)
Note the following:
Articles of Confederation
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
*******
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization. (Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.)
*******
Constitution of the United States : Preamble
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Emphasis added.)
*******
This looks like an argument that Lincoln had some justification in trying to preserve the Union.
I came across this recently at Project Avalon and thought I'd throw it into the mix.<
The "more perfect union" established in the Constitution very obviously didn't include any pretensions to the perpetuity of the agreement as the AoC had. If it had, surely the literate men who wrote the text would have included it.
Are you in the habit of challenging contractors you do business with and insisting that language nonexistent in your contract with them be honored as though it were there? If so, you probably don't have any repeat associations with contractors.
Also, you really should get beyond the Avalon project of the pinkos of Yale and do your own study. Everywhere in the Constitution that the phrase "the United States" appears when describing powers and obligations, it is in reference to the federal government. In the language of the Constitution, the "United States" refers to the government being created in its articles. This is to differentiate between the actions, powers and responsibilities of the individual states and the actions, powers and responsibilities of the newly created government representing the union of the individual states.
Lincoln had every justification in preserving the union, including his oath of office. What he was not justified in doing was attacking a new nation formed of states which had formerly been part of the US but who had left because of the intentions of Lincoln's party. Lincoln still had a union to defend but he chose instead to attack a new nation which wasn't threatening his union and which was not under his control as president. His war to subjugate and force the return of those states can hardly be called "preserving the union". It more properly consisted of defeating a newly formed nation to add its territory to the territory of the US and to forever change the relationship of all the formerly sovereign states to the newly sovereign central government.
You'll never hear any criticism of that atrocity from the marxists of Yale.