Question:
Problem about Federal Government Resume ?
the issue of allowing the federal government to use force
to compel the obedience of a state was considered and rejected by the
framers: That's why the Constitution only allows the federal government
to use force against a state in two cases, namely, at the request of
the state's governor or legislature to suppress domestic violence or to
repel a foreign invasion of the state.
Answer:
-The CSA wanted peaceful relations with the U.S. Jefferson Davis sent a
peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in the hope of establishing
friendly ties and trade relations with the U.S. The Confederacy
offered to pay the Southern states' share of the national debt and to
pay compensation for all federal holdings in the South.
Can't we at least be honest in 2005 and admit that the South was not
the aggressor, did not want war, and in fact tried everything short of
surrender to avoid having to fight?
-If the original American understanding of the people's sovereignty is
correct, then those seizures, even the pre-secession ones, were not
stealing. When Southern citizens voted in conventions and referendums
to withdraw their states from the Union, "federal property" ceased to
exist in those states. The people of the state are the ultimate
sovereign for their state, not the federal government. The
pre-secession seizures came at tmes when it was already crystal clear
that the states in question were soon going to withdraw from the Union.
And what is "federal property" anyway? It is property that is
ultimately owned by all citizens, in their capacities as citizens of
their respective states, as the ultimate sovereign. So if the citizens
of a state vote to withdraw their state from the Union, then they have
every right to assume total control over federal property in their
state. To be on the safe side, and to make the separation friendly,
the state should offer to pay compensation for the seized property,
even though the state's citizens could certainly point out that they
and their ancestors had certainly paid their fair share of the taxes
that went to purchase/build that property.
The supremacy clause? That has nothing to do with the issue of whether
a state can leave the Union. Even in his nationalist days, James
Madison did not cite the supremacy cluase when he opined during the
ratification process that New York had to ratify the Constitution "in
toto and forever." The honest answer is that the Constitution is
simply silent on the issue of secession. There is no clause in the
Constitution that says the citizens of a state can't decide to revoke
their state's ratification of the Constitution. And, by the way, New
York rejected Madison's opinion and ratified the Constitution with a
ratification ordinance that specified that the state reserved the right
to resume the powers of government that it was granting in ratification
if it felt the need to do so, and that state was accepted into the
Union on the basis of that ratification ordinance.
