Cherry-picker.
If you read the whole thing, you might actually understand it.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common.
Oh. The emphasis on retaining an entire liberty part.......
was HIS!
I suppose the point is that people differ on their interpretation of the law.
Therefore, persons of good will submit issues to the properly instituted legal authorities, and abide by the result. Of course if they are not persons of good will they may start shooting, as the rebels did at Ft. Sumter.
After the war was over, Mr White asked to have his Confederate bonds issued by repaid. His request was denied, as the authority of Texas to issue bonds had be vacated by their insurrection. Texas v. White.
Retaining their entire liberty in your quote did not mean retaining their entire liberty. Of course the liberty of the various states was restricted by the Constitution.
One provision of that restriction was the duty to submit certain classes of controversies to, and to submit to the result of decisions by the Supreme Court.
The people of the states retained their ‘right of revolution’ but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.
And so it proved.