Read this: Until recently, in the absence of prior agreement on a clear and precise definition, the concept was thought to mean (as a shorthand) 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government'. New research, however, argues that this cannot be correct, as dividing sovereignty - when this concept is properly understood in its core meaning of the final and absolute source of political authority in a political community - is not possible. The descent of the United States into Civil War in the mid-nineteenth century, over disputes about unallocated competences concerning slavery and ultimately the right of secession, showed this. One or other level of government could be sovereign to decide such matters, but not both simultaneously. Therefore, it is now suggested that federalism is more appropriately conceived as 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government'. What differentiates the concept from other multi-level political forms is the characteristic of equality of standing between the two levels of government established. This clarified definition opens the way to identifying two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whether sovereignty resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples): the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union), respectively. Leading examples of the federal state include the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India. The leading example of the federal union of states is the European Union.

What historical event illustrated that dividing sovereignty was possible?
What is the answer? (If it cannot be answered, return "unanswerable")
unanswerable