The supremacy clause is inapposite in this case. The reason is clear. The supremacy clause does not deal with the fundamental point that sovereignty was originally vested in the states, not the federal government. The clause is only invoked in those situations in which federal law or constitutional provisions conflict with state laws or constitutional provisons. It is much like a contract that includes a choice of law clause for purposes of clarifying matters if conflicts arise.
And to suggest that somehow a scalliwag such as Lincoln is an unapproachable American diety whose errant views cannot be challenged is simply absurd. If anything, it appears that you sir have been bamboozled by the cult of personality that has beatified ol' Abe. That same tendency toward apotheosis is what has given rise to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Jon Il and Saddam.
Do remember that ours is a government of laws, not of men. If you accuse the author or the poster of slander it is your duty to point out exactly where there statements are blasphemous. Otherwise, you, sir, are guilty of the slaner that you accuse others of committing.
Lincoln was not a scalawag. That was a term reserved for Southerners who cooperated with the carpet baggers.
The supremacy clause is just that. The states surrendered much of their sovereignity in order to form a union. We lost 600,000 lives working that one out. Let's give it up, ok, or do you want slavery and indentured servitude back?
Andrew Jackson himself fought this battle with his fellow southerners when he scolded John C. Calhoun one Jefferson Day dinner. Calhoun was planning on riding the nullification question into the White House. He said, "The Union--it must be preserved."
Boy, it's arguments like this that really give traction to the liberal argument that conservative are a bunch of mouth-breathing neanderthals.