IMHO consolidation nationalism evolved from several competing options. Jefferson's was one of them. There is an ideal theory of States Rights that Jefferson and many founding fathers held outside of the Hamilton type Federalism, which in my view was not a majority view at the convention and my biased view more oriented toward protecting the moneyed classes than anything else. Running a country is a practical exercise and the ideal theories foundered in the sea of practicality.
The Whiskey rebellion ended the ideal of both the Hamilton experiment and the ideal State experiment. One cannot depend on States nor can one trample over voters.
Calhoun was convinced that the Constitution was created with a perfect equilibrium between two sections and was designed to operate through the maintenance of that perfect equilibrium. But, through an unfortunate choice of a word, the equilibrium was destroyed and with it the real reason for the Constitution.
Theory is a theory, is a theory, Jefferson was indeed one among many. But as noted by Calhoun, the actions of many of those in positions of legal authority tended to act in spite of the perceived intent of the Framers, even, Jefferson.
Calhoun was concerned that, whatever the intent of the framers of the Constitution, the gov't they formed, almost immediately achieved a momentum(some referred to it as having a life of its own) that followed its own path to achieving the fruits of the original Fathers intentions, whatever they were.
More than most polticians, Lincoln had no trouble, admitting that events controlled his actions rather than the opposite.